< 9 June	11 June >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dreams for Kids[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE. Let's go through the sources:

[1] paywalled journal article that appears unrelated to the subject matter.
[2], Q&A interview with the subject's founder, not independent
[3] IMO the best source of those provided, but as an article in a local paper about an event jointly hosted by the subject, it falls short of significant coverage
[4] Another journal article that appears to be totally unrelated to the subject. This one isn't paywalled, and I wasn't able to find any mention of the subject on the cited pages.
[5] The title of this piece is promising, but the content is another threadbare interview. Not significant coverage
[6] Does not look like a reliable source
[7] Forbes contributor, not reliable
[8] A well-written article, but the publisher looks like a PR firm.
[9] Not a secondary source
[10] Not independent
[11] Not independent
[12] Not independent

When searching online, I was able to find some trivial coverage but nothing that would push the subject toward meeting notability guidelines. Somewhat complicating matters, there appear to be other organizations by this name, such as this one. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al McFoster[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG, no coverage in independent reliable sources. I wasn't able to find any additional coverage searching online. Film and television appearances appear to be largely limited to bit parts, does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR. The initial editor of the article appears to be a SPA as well. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Most film and television appearances do meet WP:NACTOR however there are a few small roles. Additional coverage to meet WP:GNG can be found online with a good search. Definitely is a notable DJ based on search on alias name as well. _signed,Taasyn ^talk03:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Taasyn, could you provide examples of such additional coverage? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparances as non-significant characters, which is what he actually has, do not constitute meeting notability for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NACTOR is not automatically passed just because an actor can list roles — every actor can always list roles, because having acting roles is literally the job description. What it takes to get an actor over the notability bar is not just a list of roles, but evidence of reliable source coverage in media about the actor and his performances, in order to neutrally and objectively and externally establish that the roles were actually as "significant" as claimed. But there's zero evidence of that here: seven footnotes, literally not a single one of them a reliable or notability-supporting source. This is not how you get an actor over the notability hump. Bearcat (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There seems to be a new consensus that the sources found by Nfitz are enough to keep, so I'll boldly (and hopefully not recklessly) close right here right now. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raynard Jackson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable political advisor per WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. KidAd (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just at a glance, there is sufficient coverage on him. eg this and this and perhaps he writes too (if this is the same person). Also would note it appears his page wasn't really developed since the last AfD. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is Raynard Jackson being canceled because he is a black conservative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.116.49 (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete: Does not pass any notability criteria such as WP:GNG] or ANYBIO. Not enough reliable sources available for a BLP. -- Otr500 (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Political advisors aren't inherently notable. LefcentrerightDiscuss 00:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No subject is inherently notable -- WP:NRVE explicitly states this. It follows that inherent notability is not a requirement of WP:GNG. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article has been here a decade, and no one person supported the previous AFD. But suddenly he gets international attention for supporting Trump, and there's suddenly a surge to delete? Easily meets GNG one, three, four. Nfitz (talk) 02:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - keep for the reasons stated in my comment above, and the sources I provided, and per Nfitz. Individual meets WP:GNG. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per sources provided by Nfitz. Article needs improvement, not deletion. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG --02:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Miss Charity BC. Actually a delete but the redirect was requested Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtnee Anderson[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Winning a very obscure beauty pageant isn't going to satisfy WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The subject may also want this deleted (the request seems to have been overwritten by the Afd notice). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:GNG ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not an obscure beauty pageant, it's at the provincial level and one of the top 4 titles in Courage Productions' annual pageant, which are each in their own category (i.e. this is a first place win in her category, not 4th place, the same way a Mrs. BC is not even a contender for Miss BC due to marital status). The Miss Charity BC title is a good title, it's provincial in Canada, similar to state-level in U.S. so it's basically like winning Miss Alaska, so are you going to nominate Debbe Ebben too? If all state-level beauty queen winners in the U.S. can have an article, then why discriminate against provincial-level beauty queen winners in Canada? However, if she wants it deleted, that's another matter - first of all I don't understand why, because the article is complimentary and not defamatory. Secondly, can someone educate me - are people able to request Wikipedias be removed about them? Just seems strange to me, like a criminal could decide he doesn't want an article about him and he can just request that it be removed? Thanks for any info. --Wiki2008time (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all like Miss Alaska. Also, if someone doesn't want an article, if they are of marginal notability they can certainly request a courtesy deletion. This topic is covered at WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, but hopefully it's discussed in greater detail somewhere else. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it's not like Miss Alaska. This is a provincial-level title, and Miss Alaska is state level, and Canada has provinces where the U.S. has states. However, if she can request a courtesy deletion, who am I to disagree. I thought I was flattering a beauty queen, not offending her. --Wiki2008time (talk) 06:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miss BC may be equivalent to Miss Alaska (debatable), but Miss Left-handed Nurse BC or any other qualified titles are definitely not. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: If this will end up being deleted, please at least redirect to Miss Charity BC. I merged the most useful info on there anyway. --Wiki2008time (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per my comments on related AFDs. Unless there is significant in depth coverage of her hiding away somewhere, winning or placing in non-notable pageants doesn't mean she's notable. Praxidicae (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To be notable as a pageant winner a person has to win a national level pageant, and even that alone is not a gaurantee of notability, just the point at which the coverage may be enough to justify notability. Sub-national pageant winners are never notable for such per se, although a very few get so much coverage in the process they become notable, but that is very rare. It is clearly not the case here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment About the Miss Alaska question, we have determined that state level contestants in the Miss America pageant are not notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The analogy to Miss Alaska ignores the fact that we had one article on all 66 winner of Miss Alaska. The one we have only has an article because she got a very brief coverage because she won the contest after she had shaved her head to donate her hair to people getting treatments for cancer. I have nominated even that article for deletion because it does not actually meet our inclusion guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't talk to me or my son ever again[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only source I found after March-August 2016 was this article:

https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/best-memes-2016/

and it lists it among several dozen other memes, most of them equally long-forgotten. The meme was only popular for about ten months tops and only received on-and-off coverage for about 150 days, which doesn’t exactly qualify as WP:SUSTAINED in my view. Compare that to, say, No Nut November, which has been around as a term/concept since at least 2011, been popular since 2017, and received coverage for at least a year’s worth of time (November ‘18 to November ‘19). That meme is also connected to multiple significant figures and movements, while this meme just... existed for no easily discernible reason and faded back out of existence pretty quickly. Dronebogus (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no established notability standards for internet memes, but WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA applies. KidAd (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability is not determined by comparing the popularity of this subject with another. It's determined by reliable sources, writing about the subject directly and in detail. This article cites 9 sources, including Slate, the Verge and New York Magazine. Saying that one viral meme is significant because it lasted for twelve months, while another one is insignificant because it lasted for six months, is absurd. They're viral memes, the whole point of them is that they spread quickly and then fade away. Only a few of them get New York Magazine coverage. The editors who compiled this article have done a very good job of documenting the rise and spread of this meme, and the article deserves to stand. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About the sources:

Gabe (March 18, 2016). "The Internet has one simple demand: 'Don't talk to me or my son ever again'". The Daily Dot. Retrieved August 12, 2016.

They cover a lot of random memes so this is pretty much Routine Coverage for them.

^ Jump up to: a b Andrews, Jeff; Horn, Leslie (March 24, 2016). "How 'Don't Talk To Me Or My Son Ever Again' Went Viral". Vocativ. Retrieved August 12, 2016.

I dunno about this, I’ve never heard of this website.

^ O'Donnell, Carey (March 19, 2016). "The "Don't Ever Talk To Me or My Son Again" Meme Is Sweeping the Net". Paper. Paper Communications. Retrieved August 12, 2016.

Counts.

^ Alcantara, Ann-Marie (June 30, 2016). "12 Examples That Explain the "Don't Talk to Me or My Son Ever Again" Meme". PopSugar. Retrieved August 13, 2016.

Entertainment listicle. Not really in-depth coverage.

^ "Here Are The 23 Best 'Don't Talk to Me Or My Son Ever Again' Memes". Smosh. April 2, 2016. Retrieved August 12, 2016.

^ Hendricks, Sara (April 11, 2016). "15 Of The Best "Don't Talk To Me Or My Son Ever Again" Memes You'll Ever See". gURL.com. Retrieved August 12, 2016.

Random lists from entertainment sites, which aren’t reliable sources.

^ Tiffany, Kaitney (August 12, 2016). "What is the meme of the summer?". The Verge. Vox Media. Retrieved August 12, 2016.

I’m gonna go with my gut and say this is not actually in-depth coverage.

^ "You’re the Puppet. Lock Her Up. It’s a Knife.". Slate. December 9, 2016. Retrieved February 28, 2016.

Not in-depth

^ Feldman, Brian (March 22, 2016). "‘Don’t Talk To Me Or My Son Ever Again’: A Guide to a Great Meme". New York. Retrieved August 12, 2017.

Counts.

That’s maybe 2-4 truly in-depth, reliable sources. Not 9. Dronebogus (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, “doing a very good job” is not a subjective reason for keeping an article. Lots of articles about Pokemon were probably written by people who “did a very good job” of it, but that doesn’t mean they were not notable. Editors who want to cover random memes should think about lending their expertise to a site like Know Your Meme. Dronebogus (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes — 2-4 in-depth, reliable sources. That establishes notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4, maybe, but 2 maybe not. This topic seems to be right on the border between notable and not notable. However, I still stand by deletion because of the short lifespan and lack of wider impact the meme had. Dronebogus (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Toughpigs and WP:NTEMP. It was agreed to be kept in the previous AfD. Sources in the article are indeed reliable. Article is still good enough to meet WP:WEBCRIT. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, don't bother arguing. I'm not interested in looking for an argument or debate in this AfD. I've said what I've said. So, I won't reply from hereon. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Each source in the article is reliable. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 00:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“Reliable” is not the same as “proving notability”. Dronebogus (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sourcing here clearly passes GNG, and they are from a period of time far enough apart to sail by any time constraint outlined in WP:N. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to pass GNG based on the sources provided.★Trekker (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Miss BC. Actually a delete but the redirect was requested Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gloren Guelos[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Winning a couple of obscure beauty pageants doesn't satisfy WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They're not obscure beauty pageants. The Miss BC title is a good title, it's provincial in Canada, similar to state-level in U.S. so it's basically like winning Miss Alaska, so are you going to nominate Debbe Ebben too? If all state-level beauty queen winners in the U.S. can have an article, then why discriminate against provincial-level beauty queen winners in Canada? Also, Miss Supranational Canada is a national pageant, she won at the country-level, you can't argue that's obscure unless you consider Canada obscure? Wiki2008time (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are really obscure pageants. How come Guelos isn't mentioned in the Vancouver Sun or Province? There are just a handful of articles in these major BC newspapers for any of the Miss BC winners, and Miss Supranational Canada (which makes no logical sense: a national title that's "supranational"?) gets even less than that. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you go over to Courage Productions, there are plenty of articles about Miss BC winners multiple times - including the Province for 2009 http://www.theprovince.com/Miss+Pageant+2009/1764478/story.html This pageant itself is the biggest provincial pageant in BC. As for Miss Supranational Canada, I understand it's a relatively new pageant, so that may be part of the issue there, but I still look at any national pageant that can be followed by a global pageant and I find that notable. --Wiki2008time (talk) 05:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki2008time, so we have an album of them winning, and a couple of obscure articles (perhaps?) on some of these Miss Teen Canada winners with one or two short paragraphs on how they won X year's Miss BC contest. Given a lack of general notability and absence of sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, do you not feel the listing of these individuals is best met by adding them to Miss Teen Canada or Miss BC and so on? Even on that page, there's dozens of individuals without pages created. Do you support creating a page for each one?

None of these individuals meet WP:GNG - we can barely write more than 4 sentences about them, and even those 4 sentences just state that they won a pageant (and, in the case of all these related AfD listings) afterwards never seemed to do any remotely notable modelling - this particular one became a nurse. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: If this will end up being deleted, please at least redirect to Miss BC. I would suggest one of the national ones but the only national pageant she won (Miss Supranational) does not seem to have a wikipedia page as it was deemed a "non-notable" pageant by a previous AfD. I already put her information on the Miss BC page. --Wiki2008time (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per usual, placing or even winning these dime-a-dozen pageants does not make one notable. Praxidicae (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's a bit late now, but Clarityfiend perhaps these should've just been WP:BUNDLE'd into one AfD. The arguments being made are pretty much the same across each one, and they're all pretty much equally unnotable. Some points have been repeated across the similar AfDs, others haven't. Reviewing admin may wish to take a look at points made on the similar Miss Teen BC AfDs, made on same or +- 1 day. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. They all won different pageants, so I didn't want to muddy the waters. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beautiful girl. Zero coverage, possibly very very early in her career. scope_creep^Talk 09:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Paula Kelley. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Bit of Everything[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this EP is notable, there is no significant coverage or RS. Therefore fails GNG and other notability guidelines. JohnmgKing (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Paula Kelley: Barely found anything about the EP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Normally a redirect is the correct route, but the artist herself is only barely worthworthy herself, it serves no useful purpose to have even a redirect. Anyone searching for it is unlikely to the searching for the album since it is such a general term. Hzh (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Minnesota State Boys Hockey Tournament[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined PROD. Concern was: "Non-notable high school athletics tournament." Doesn't seem to meet GNG or any SNG. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 22:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 22:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 22:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not satisfy WP:GNG ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, individual event does not meet WP:GNG guidelines. Flibirigit (talk) 08:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Such events occur all the time. NavjotSR (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Nika2020 (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG. It appears to be the epitome of routine sports reporting and WP:NOTNEWS. There's no indication this tournament is particularly notable. Papaursa (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spanish Armed Forces unit mottoes[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This information seems interesting to have on the articles of specific units, but it does not seem noteworthy enough to have a whole list that's nothing but mottos. Beland (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't honestly see any problem with this article or any real reasoning behind the nomination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First of all, I think it's fair to start mentioning that I'm the creator and main contributor to the article in question.

Trying to leave that aside, I think that the article is relevant enough to be in Wikipedia, has a sufficient amount of references, contains historical mottoes related to Spanish history -like Desperta, ferro!-; and also has a decent amount of recent visits taking into account its specificity. In addition, I'd like to mention that the idea to create the article arose to me after seeing the articles List of United States Armed Forces unit mottoes and List of military unit mottoes by country which follow an identical structure and include information of similar relevance, and as the number of mottoes I researched for the Spanish Armed Forces was large, I decided to include them in a separate article taking United States' one as a model. (For clarification: I don't want to use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument of wheter it's noteworthy or not, but as an explanation of why I thought the article could be included.)

I understand that coming from a foreign country and being almost all of them in a different language than English, an editor unfamiliar with the matter could regard the article as irrelevant; but I believe someone with interest in the military or Spanish history could find it interesting, circumstance which I think the page hit number provides an insight.

Have a nice day! — Ce Ele 415 (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP When an article gets too long its common to split off parts of it. List of military unit mottoes by country is quite long, so this part of it has its own article, just like the American section does. Dream Focus 14:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm not sure why we have that, either. It adds a bit of flavor to an organization article to include the motto, but it's a bit of a head scratcher why anyone would want to read only mottos without reading anything else about the organizations. It just seems like a big collection of trivia to me. -- Beland (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given a motto, you can look up the unit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: 106 references and so many It has not been possible to retrieve the requested information. The destination of the requested page or document may have changed. If you are sure that the address is correct, please contact the webmaster indicating the error, or This site can’t be reached. -- Otr500 (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, the Spanish Armed Forces redesigned their websites and many links broke or changed, and others didn't transfer well from the Spanish version. I intend to fix them when I find some time. Thanks, — Ce Ele 415 (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems a suitable subject for a list. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Burning of the Burning Embers pub[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insignificant event during the Troubles, fails WP:NEVENTS by a significant way. I will take each reference in turn.

"CAIN: Chronology of the Conflict 1969" Background information from events in 1969 only, irrelevant to significance of this event in 1971
"AN PHOBLACHT/REPUBLICAN NEWS" Background information for event that occurred in 1970, irrelevant to significance of this event in 1971
"Archived copy" I'm not even going to link to per WP:COPYLINK. It's an illegal download of a book cited elsewhere in the article, Voices from the Grave by Ed Moloney. This book will be addressed later
CAIN: Chronology of the Conflict 1971" CAIN's database attempts to include every shooting and bombing (and other incidents) during the Troubles, inclusion on their list is irrelevant for demonstrating significance. Their total coverage is Members of the Official Irish Republican Army (OIRA) engaged in a gun battle with members of the Provisional IRA (PIRA). One man was killed. The feud between the two wings of the IRA had been developing ever since the Republic movement split on 11 January 1970.
THE BLANKET * Index: Current Articles" is an article by Brendan Hughes, one of the participants in the incident and thus a primary source.

Every other footnote is completely and totally irrelevant. I was tempted to deal with each in turn, but I'll simply say they all relate to incidents in 1972 and 1975, so irrelevant to significance of this event in 1971

In the "Sources" section two are listed. CAIN cross tables which is a tool using for sorting CAIN's database of deaths during the Troubles, and is not a reference for this incident. Ed Moloney's Voices from the Grave is cited, the entirety of the coverage of this incident is solely an interview with Brendan Hughes, there is no analysis of the event by the author. This book is an oral history where Hughes talks about his IRA activity in detail. In the absence of any analysis from Moloney, this is also a primary source.

Although not cited in the article, this incident was covered by a paragraph in The Lost Revolution by Brian Hanley and Scott Millar. The "Burning of the Burning Embers pub" is covered in a single sentence which reads The Provisionals raided the Officials’ Burning Embers Bar, where Sullivan was drinking with Paddy Devlin, and tried to burn it down

No significant lasting effect, no historical significance, no in-depth coverage, just a minor feud between two rival organisations. FDW777 (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It clearly fails to meet notability guidelines, as FDW777 has shown. This is one of many Troubles articles made over the past couple of years, by the same two users, which have the very same issues. ~Asarlaí 10:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Asarlaí: I find with these articles (and looking at how they are constructed and written I'd suggest the "two users" are one and the same) that once you take away the unrelated information from the background and aftermath sections, and other unreferenced claims you're left with very, very little. A sentence or two generally speaking, nothing that demonstrates historical significance. FDW777 (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While looking into this some more I came across some information that demonstrates very clearly the dangers of using primary sources like "AN PHOBLACHT/REPUBLICAN NEWS" to construct a timeline of events. Gerry Adams has managed to get the date of Tom Cahill's shooting wrong, not by much but still wrong as it was in 1971 not 1970. Both Out of the Ashes: An Oral History of the Provisional Irish Republican Movement by Robert W. White and Joe Cahill: A Life in the IRA by Brendan Anderson state Tom Cahill's shooting happened after the killing of Charlie Hughes (Anderson states it happened only hours later while Cahill was delivering milk, White doesn't state exactly when but it's clear it was very soon after), by Official IRA members that had not been informed of the truce agreed after the death of Charlie Hughes. Both those references and others I checked all tend to focus on the death of Charlie Hughes, the "Burning Embers" and "Cracked Cup" don't get mentioned. That coverage is generally trivial though, and even if this article was re-titled and re-focused I still think it should be deleted. FDW777 (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable: has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Scolaire (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Heresy in Judaism. Consensus that this is a content fork. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heresy in Orthodox Judaism[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First of all, this page is totally redundant. The majority of the points made are already mentioned in Heresy in Judaism. Very little about this page actually specifies specific heretical beliefs present in orthodox Judaism as apposed to mainstream Judaism. On Heresy in Judaism I wrote as heading that states “The definitions of Heresy are sometimes different in certain Orthodox Jewish circles. Some Ultra-Orthodox Jews consider many works of Maimonides to be heretical, due to his more liberal interpretations of the Torah. That being said, many Orthodox Jews also hold Maimonides' Mishneh Torah to a very high regard. A small number of Haredi Jews consider the Conservative and Reform Jewish movements to be heretical, and an even smaller number of Hassidic groups such as Satmar consider the State of Israel to be a heretical institution. Ultimately, the majority of Orthodox Jews consider secular Jews as Tinok shenishbim as apposed to heretics.” This basically summarizes all the reasonable points made on Heresy in Orthodox Judaism and explains the real differences present between orthodox and mainstream Judaism. Secondly, the page has no actual sources, which speaks for itself. And lastly, the general neutrality of this page is definitely contestable. If not an outright delete, this page should be merged with Heresy in Judaism. Ibn Daud (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP the nominator is incorrect and cites skewed scholarship and simply because Orthodox Judaism and Haredi Judaism and Hasidic Judaism regard Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Reconstructionist Judaism etc as heretical movements, while on the other hand when it comes to Hebrew Christians and Sabbateans all streams of Judaism regard those as Heretical. The nominator has taken a ((main)) article (Heresy in Orthodox Judaism) and made it into a few sentences in Heresy in Judaism. Note, in Judaism a Heretic or Heresy is known as an Apikoris of Kofer which redirect of Heresy in Orthodox Judaism, if eliminated would leave a gaping hole in the detailed history of how and why and when Orthodox Judaism regards the non-Orthodox movements as outright heresies. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is pertinent, as it deals with an issue that is real amongst observant Jews, and which has repercussions in a person's life along the way. The article, of course, can be expanded with more sources.Davidbena (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

REFUTATION OF NOMINATOR'S ARGUMENT: (1) "First of all, this page is totally redundant" It is not, it is full in new and WP:NOTABLE information. (2) "The majority of the points made are already mentioned in Heresy in Judaism." So what? Much of Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism is already "mentioned" and part of "Orthodox Judaism" but it does not mean they are "equal" or "repetitive" of each other. (3) "Very little about this page actually specifies specific heretical beliefs present in orthodox Judaism as apposed to mainstream Judaism." There is no such thing as so-called "mainstream Judaism" because there are today MANY STREAMS of Judaism and each has views regarding the validity or non-validity of the other. See for example Criticism of Judaism, Criticism of Conservative Judaism. (4) "On Heresy in Judaism I wrote as heading that states “The definitions of Heresy are sometimes different in certain Orthodox Jewish circles." This is incorrect because as the article Heresy in Orthodox Judaism points out there are specific citations from the Torah, Maimonides, different codes of Jewish law, all being 100% WP:NPOV and complying fully with WP:NOR. (5) "Some Ultra-Orthodox Jews consider many works of Maimonides to be heretical, due to his more liberal interpretations of the Torah." This is utter nonsense and a fabrication. This is about one author (Maimonides), not about an entire religious movement. There is a difference between being controversial and being heretical in Judaism, which may be difficult for the outsider to see. (6) "That being said, many Orthodox Jews also hold Maimonides' Mishneh Torah to a very high regard." Again not to the point by discussing an author and not a religious movement. It is not about what groupX or groupY of Jews holds it is the position of larger movements vis a vis each other. (7) "A small number of Haredi Jews consider the Conservative and Reform Jewish movements to be heretical, and an even smaller number of Hassidic groups such as Satmar consider the State of Israel to be a heretical institution." By marginalizing huge mainstream Haredi and Orthodox movements the author reveals his anti-Haredi and even anti-Orthodox prejudices that would explain why he is doing this on grounds of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and nothing else. (8) "Ultimately, the majority of Orthodox Jews consider secular Jews as Tinok shenishbim as apposed to heretics.”" Huh? Who is talking about "secular Jews"?! This is wrong and not true. The author does not cite a single WP:RS authority to back up this allegation. (9) "This basically summarizes all the reasonable points made on Heresy in Orthodox Judaism and explains the real differences present between orthodox and mainstream Judaism." The nominator fails to explain what he regards as the difference between "Orthodox" and "mainstream" Judaism, and if so, if there is a true difference even according to him, then surely there needs to be a different set of articles about the the Orthodox position and policies based on WP:RS in the the original article the nominator wishes to demolish. (10) "Secondly, the page has no actual sources, which speaks for itself. And lastly, the general neutrality of this page is definitely contestable. If not an outright delete, this page should be merged with Heresy in Judaism." This allegation is FALSE because the article cites many WP:RS and is written BY MULTIPLE EDITORS, EXISTING SINCE 2007 [13] from a 100% WP:NPOV because while explaining the Orthodox/Haredi/Hasidic position on Heresy, that may understandably "disturb some viewers", but that does NOT mean they are faulty in any way whatsoever. This is a very good article, period. There is no point to run from the truth when it is staring you in the face! Thank you so much, IZAK (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators defense

I’d like to defend myself against some of the accusations made against me personally.

I’d like to point out, the main reason I proposed the deletion of this page is because the majority of the information on this page has already been mentioned on Heresy in Orthodox Judaism. Even if this page is kept up, it shouldn’t repeat information present on other pages to the extent that it currently does. This has nothing to do with a domineering viewport or a certain religious agenda. This is simply a matter of a redundant and poorly written page.

Mainstream Judaism is a common term, but it is convoluted and I could have used better terminology. That being said, that really isn’t related to the deletion of this page.

As for my “anti-Haredi and even anti-Orthodox prejudices”, I myself am an Orthodox Jew, and I have no agenda to pick on any specific Jewish group. I simply pointed out the commonly accepted belfies of some religious communities. Again I don’t really see how this is relevant to the delation of this page. If the blurb about Heresy in Orthodox Judaism needs to be changed or expanded on Heresy in Judaism then I encourage you to do so.

Ultimately, if I made any mistakes in my summary of this page on Heresy in Judaism, then I’m very sorry. It was not my intention to marginalize or offend any group of people. All that being said, at the end of the day, I don’t really see the value of this page unless it’s really expanded and improved on. And even then, most of the information could just be put on Heresy in Judaism. I’d like to point out again, that if you have any problems with my edits on Heresy in Judaism. I encourage you to fix them and leave an edit summary. Zei Gezunt Ibn Daud (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree with the nominator that there is no reason to have a separate article for heresy in Orthodox Judaism, since the only difference is that some types of Judaism are considered to be borderline heretical by Orthodox Judaism, and that is explained in a section of the article about heresy in general Judaism. The target article is not large, and the issue is best dealt with in one article, both for practical purposes, read to avoid repetition, and in order to give readers an overview of the whole issue in all its forms on one page. Debresser (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge I agree that Heresy in Orthodox Judaism is essentially an unedited copy of Heresy in Judaism and virtually all its content is duplicated. As such, any non-duplicated content should be moved to Heresy in Judaism, and Heresy in Orthodox Judaism made into a redirect.Ar2332 (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE User:SamsonKriger has made major improvements to the article [14] since its nomination, IZAK (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- [15] - these are major improvements? Is that how awful this article is? starship .paint (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge as per User:Ar2332. Move anything useful and redirect. Editor2020 (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge per Debresser. starship .paint (talk) 04:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Commment (not to be taken as a vote). Articles are supposed to be based on reliable secondary sources, but only primary sources are visible and some parts don't even have primary sources. However, there is an invisible secondary source: except for the intro and the unsourced section "Non-Orthodox Judaism", everything is a copy-paste from the Jewish Encyclopedia. Zero^talk 04:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zero0000, the Jewish Encyclopedia is in the public domain and can be used as a valid source. All one has to do is just source it and maybe at the bottom use a JE template/reftag, depending on how much of the page came from the JE. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I knew all of that. My object was to inform people writing here of this significant fact. Zero^talk 02:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Heresy in Judaism. This article is a redundant fork of the main article, which has quite enough space in it to fit this content without harm. Havradim (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The main article is not so long that it requires forking, and moreover a lot of the material in this one predates the idea of "Orthodox Judaism" (even if Orthodox Jews continue to refer to it). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural close. This is indeed being transcluded at the mentioned article so discussion at the appropriate venue should continue. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rock Band Network 2.0 songs[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All information in article is already available in List of Rock Band Network songs Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep On the basis of the nomination, this article is being transcluded into the List of Rock Band Network songs (you can see the source there for yourself), so deleting this deletes this information from that article. That said, we're discussing the matter of these lists at the VG project as there might need to be a review in general of the DLC overall for Rock Band. --Masem (t) 15:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There was a lot of back-and-forth, but since the last relisting there appears to be overwhelming consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SiIvaGunner[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure how notable this actually is -- seems to be fleeting mentions at best, doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER imo Kingoflettuce (talk) 05:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In WP:ENTERTAINER, "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following." SiIvaGunner definitely meets this requirement. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On a separate note, there's a scholarly mention here. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 05:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Far from "Definitely" (if that were the case all youtubers w 300k subs would have their own article)... Regarding your "Scholarly mention", see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. In any case, my gripe is that even in the Rses that Silva is mentioned in (and not all sources cited are RSes, mind you) it's just a one-liner that doesn't establish actual notability. Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I can't really provide a reliable source that SiIva has a cult following, but it's still true. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 06:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relevantly: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources." Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To just say "it's still true" even if you can't prove it doesn't hold water here. Unfortunately the sources you've provided here are either not RS, or one-liners, or both. There is no in-depth enduring third-party coverage of him in reliable sources. Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The We Are Number One song that became popular back in 2016 was first remixed in SiIvaGunner's YouTube channel, and it seemed to gain a ton of popularity afterwards before becoming an internet meme of its own. SiIvaGunner also has a fairly active fan wiki, although I don't know if that's sufficient proof that the channel has a "cult" following. Matoking (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A breakdown:
[16]: not the same guy??? Contrary to what the article currently states: "Essentially, GiIvaSunner is trolling anyone looking for the real YouTuber GilvaSunner." A trivial mention in any case....
[17]: A trivial description of GiIva's channel
[18] See above objection per WP:SCHOLARSHIP
[19]: primary source
[20]: supposedly self-published by subject on weebly.com, discount
[21] no idea if Nintendo Life counts as an RS on Internet culture, but it's a trivial mention anyway ("xxx got content taken down for copyvio", with only 1 real para devoted to him, the rest is just about the general phenom of copyvio strikedowns)
[22] brief mention in a listicle
[23]: likewise
[24]: yet another one-liner
[25]: ditto
[26]: yet another passing reference to his channel
[27]: millionth one-liner in a row referencing "Know Your Meme"
[28]: not even about him, & SilvaGunner is only mentioned in one line

Nuff said... Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"GiIvaSunner" is the former name of SiIvaGunner. This is explained in the article. They are not "not the same guy". On a related note, SiIva is a group, not a person. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

my bad, I meant GiIva/SiIva isn't the same as Gilva/Silva (what I quoted)---it doesn't matter in any case, because the same concerns remain inre notability. But I'm not going to spend any more time on this, we'll just let the AfD process play out Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article. We think that it's worthy of being kept.VGPCVGCP (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, and apologies if this is a stupid question, wouldn't a large amount of small mentions collectively add together to have the same worth as a few major mentions? Also, in the above sources, there are at least 2 that can be considered to be primarily covering SiIva (namely the Kotaku and Dailydot articles) and the Gallery Aferro mentions aren't really "trivial". Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've done some good work and contributed to a bunch of Good Articles -- so you should know that, no, a large amount of trivial mentions aren't the same as a few major mentions. In fact, even one in-depth non-trivial mention would override a hundred sources' worth of trivial mentions.... And although Kotaku and Daily Dot are generally considered RS for pop culture, the Daily Dot one defo is a trivial mention, and the Kotaku one doesn't far much better---it's just describing the channel... Same for Gallery Aferro, just a boilerplate one-liner. Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also see that the article has been significantly expanded since it was nominated for deletion. But it's just more primary sources being cited and peppered with some original research like "Due to the channel's frequent upload rate, occasionally reaching as many as 24 videos a day, many fans of the channel avoid subscribing to it." Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True, although I didn't personally add that. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASIC allows "small mentions", but draws a line between "not substantial" and "trivial". 2, 11, 8 and 9 above fall into the latter for me. Though, I'm not going to comment on the actual AfD since I don't want to do a BEFORE right now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, considering the amount of actual music groups and well-known figures who have contributed to or acknowledged it, it feels like it's worth an article. In 2017 it wouldn't be, but it's grown enough and caused enough changes in the remix community that I don't think the article deserves to be deleted. Doesn't mean that the article can't be improved, though. Minindo (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the relisting, I'll restate my arguments in support of Keep here:

SiIvaGunner has a significant cult following,. (WP:ENTERTAINER)
The channel is mentioned numerous times throughout secondary sources. While many of these are minor, there are some more major instances of coverage.
The channel has been acknowledged by many well-known musical artists. Cites for this are in "Popularity".
While there is original research in the article, this is not reason to delete it, merely reason to improve upon it.

Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears to pass GNG.★Trekker (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 20:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Omegafalcon. Dronebogus (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has a large following. I see no reason to delete his article, but allow people with smaller channels to have their articles up. I've listened to his videos while editing Wikipedia. Scorpions13256 (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He popularized We are Number One, The Flintstones: The Rescue of Dino & Hoppy among other things. He deserves credit. Félix An (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Large cult following, demonstrated notability and significance as per WP:ENTERTAINER. Runforlimit505 (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just troubled by the flimsy rationales for Keep so far (not to mention that the sock went out of the way just o !vote)--one wonders Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has been acknowledged by numerous game composers, mentioned in a journal article, helped to popularize numerous memes, but most notably has a massive amount of published content and is an extremely active channel with its almost hourly posting schedule, which is what differentiates it from other parody Youtubers without Wikipedia pages (even the more popular ones) who are not nearly as extremely active or have as much content. Geekgecko (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Torment (band)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peruvian black metal band. I think they are not notable for Wikipedia. The sourcing in the article is crappy - Spirit of Metal, the sites of their record labels and a site that is marked with "dead link" so it's unavailable. I also checked the Portuguese wiki and the sourcing is a problem there too - the website of their record labels and YouTube videos - no comment. I did a Google search but their basic name makes it extremely difficult to search exclusively for this band as there are many other metal bands with the word "torment" in their name, and the word "Peru" did not help either as there is a Peruvian metal band that is called "Holy Torment" or something like that. I also searched for two of their albums, but nothing came up beside the unreliable databases, blogs, shop sites, youtube videos and stuff which has nothing to do with the band or the album, just the words included in other publications. This seems like an extremely underground band that is typically not suitable for Wikipedia as there are no reliable sources. Maybe there are some offline sources or something so the article can be salvaged, but I found nothing.

GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like it fails both WP:GNG and WP:BAND. I have not found significant coverage in reliable sources. Less Unless (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 20:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable band lacking any real coverage. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Psychreg[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable promotional blog/"journal", in fact when searching for sources it brings up mostly hits from Free Malaysia Today, which is who the owner/operator writes for. The other sources in this article also fail to establish notability as they're either unreliable, passing mentions or event listings. Praxidicae (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 20:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominators rationale Lyndaship (talk) 07:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities between Kerala Jews and Kerala Syrian Christians[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources Are Not In Line With Content[edit]

@theohms The sources mentioned here are not in line with the content of this article. The title states similarities between Kerala Jews and Kerala Syrian Christians. Yes it is true that the article makes distinctions between the types of Syrian Christians but not a single comparative analysis has been done between Kerala Jews and the larger St. Thomas Christian community, only the Knanaya.

I own a copy of a Weil’s source and much of what is cited here has nothing to do with the source. The table of similarities again also is not based on real comparative analysis done by scholars but simply combined by the user who created this article (of course besides Weil’s source comparing the Knanaya). None of those sources listed are comparative analysis between St. Thomas Christians and Kerala Jew’s. Perhaps the only real comparison made in the Weil source is the use of the term “Rabban” but that again is not a comparison to Kerala Jews. Rabban is a Christian title given to clergyman. Whereas the Knanaya usage of Rabban is in reference to Joseph Rabban, that is a real correlation to Kerala Jews as Weil states. The rest of the comparisons she makes in regards to the Northist are in regards to Jewish communities in general, not Kerala Jews.

Weil stating the St. Thomas Christians claim a Jewish heritage is again not a real comparison to Kerala Jews, that’s simply a statement that they claim heritage. A real comparison would be for example the songs of the Knanaya and the Cochin Jews, because those are actual shared characteristics.

For this reason this article does not have a single source that has done a real comparative analysis between the larger St. Thomas Christians and Kerala Jews, Weil only notes a few minor comparisons to the broad Jewish community. You cannot compare sources and claim those are correlations because the comparison is not done by scholarship, which Wikipedia requires. Every source besides Weil’s needs to be removed because those are not comparative studies done between Kerala Jews and Kerala Syrian Christians. Furthermore the culture of a minority community such as the Knanaya cannot be homogenized and used to represent a majority like the St. Thomas Christians, which is what the use of Weil’s source in this article seems to do.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomast48 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomast48 Your feedback is replete with wild interpretations. I have a copy of the Weil source. I quoted several excerpts from it. I also have a copy of the Pothan source cited by Weil. Original interpretations are not made beyond what is described. Both are authoritative peer-reviewed sources. If anything your interpretation of Jewish exclusivity for the Southist group is original. It is also a false assertion to say there are efforts in this article to homogenize the Southist subgroup when there are callouts that explicate differences for this minority group. Furthermore all three groups (Cochin Jews, subgroup Southist, subgroup Northist) concerned are minorities in the localities they reside. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theohms (talk • contribs) 01:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Deletion[edit]

The major source used throughout this article (Weil, Shalva (1982). "Symmetry between Christians and Jews in India: The Cananite Christians and Cochin Jews in Kerala".) is not an article that compares the entire St. Thomas Christian community to the Cochin Jews of Kerala but instead only the minority known as the Knanaya. This source is cited throughout the article in numerous places as a reference to all St. Thomas Christians.

Table of Similarities The next major issue is the table of similarities created. The table of similarities does not include any sources that actually compare the St. Thomas Christians to Kerala Jews. The table instead simply includes a source mentioning a cultural/religious facet of the St. Thomas Christians which is then compared to a Jewish source mentioning a similar facet. No real comparative analysis has been done by any sources menitioned, the comparison is made by the article creator connecting two sources. For this reason these comparisons are not valid because they are not based on comparative analysis found in scholarship but instead connected by the article creator. Wikipedia requires source-based content and none of the comparisons made are source-based. The only real comparative analysis which has been done is again in the source: "Symmetry between Christians and Jews in India: The Cananite Christians and Cochin Jews in Kerala" which is again not based on all Kerala Syrian Christians but instead only the Knanaya ethnic group.

Conclusion Due to the major issues found in the this article such as no sources on comparative studies being cited (in relation to the major group being compared), this article should be deleted. The only real comparative source being cited is Wiel's but that again is not in reference to all St. Thomas Christians but instead only the Knanaya, which makes the premise of this article entirely a fallacy. The rest of the sources cited are not comparative sources noting similarities between St. Thomas Christians and Kerala Jews, the table itself makes the comparison citing one source on the St. Thomas Christians and one on the Kerala Jews.

Looks like the article is full of original research. Debresser (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article is Source-Based[edit]

Clearly you have not reviewed the principal source cited throughout which does perform the foundational comparative analysis. The source begins with a survey of multiple Jewish Groups (Bene Israel and Cochin Jews) and Christian Groups (Northist Syrian Christians, Southist Syrian Christians, Latin Christians, and New Christians). It then discusses similarities (Weil calls this symmetric pattern) between the Cochin Jews and Syrian Christians (both Northist and Southist). Southists are reported to have more similarities and Weil uses the Southists as his primary example and case study of symmetric pattern and parallel development since the Southist subcaste of Syrian Christians is "sharply distinguished". But there are numerous examples of Shalva Weil qualifying his analysis when the symmetric pattern is not unique to Southists.

From Weil p. 181 "The Origin of Cnanite Christians of Kerala": As a postscript to this section, it should be pointed out that the tradition of Jewish origin or Jewish connections in Kerala is preserved not only by the Cnanite or Southist group but also by the wider group of Syrian Christians, or Northists.''

From Weil p. 183 Section "The 'Jewish' Customs of the Northists and the Southists": In keeping with the historical tradition of Jewish origins, many Syrian Christians believe that their ritual is a continuation of ancient Jewish practice. The customs which are believed to have a Jewish source include the

position of the bride standing on the right of the bridegroom in the marriage ceremony which is reminiscent of the verse in Psalms 45 v.9 when the king’s daughters stand on his right hand (Pothan 1963: 67);
the bridal veil (p. 70);
burial of the dead to face east towards Jerusalem (p. 75);
the priests’ black velvet cap which is supposed to be similar to the Jews’ headgear (p. 81);
and the ’Kiss of Peace’ ceremony during Eucharist which Pothan claims was copied from the Jews and takes place in some Eastern churches (p. 82).

From Weil p. 186 "The Symmetrical History of the Cnanites and the Cochin Jews": It is noteworthy that Rabban is a religious title among the Northist Christians too.

It is imperative to review a source and not just the source's title before alleging that it does not substantiate the concerned article. Theohms (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator did not properly complete the AfD nomination process at the time of nomination. I have fixed it and am neutral on the merits of deletion. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuyabribri: Thanks. This article is original research and should not belong. Thomast48 has a history of propagating original research and self publishing. YaLindaHadad (talk)

@@YaLindaHadad: Are you joking? If you look above at the discussion I’m the first one who recommended this article for deletion because of the issues present. Please do not make wild claims. I’m not sure what this user YaLindaHadad has against me but she always makes such claims towards me. Please do give a single example of when I’ve promoted original research, every single addition I’ve made to Wikipedia can be cited. The last time we talked I even stated to you I can send you pictures and links to sources I used which are all verifiable. You seem to have declined my offer perhaps because you have some sort of bias against me or the sources I’ve used but again I’m happily willing to spend my time to individually take pictures of sources I’m using and send them to you if that will stop you from making these attacks on my person. Please leave me alone and stop making claims against me without evidence. As you can see she has some sort of issue with me, she didn’t even read that I was the first one who recommended this article for deletion. Instead she’s claiming I’m the one who propagated this article. How insane is that? Why would you state that as it’s very clear that I’m the first one who brought up the issues with this article and stated it needs to be deleted. I did not have enough policy knowledge to continue the debate against this article and so I gave up my argument. Please do some basic reading before you make wild claims against me, I’m not the one who created this article. All you need to do is scroll up to see that. What’s wrong with you? Thomast48 (talk)

@Thomast48: I apologize if I have upset you. Previously, on the Knanaya page, you had made changes citing a blog and uploaded irrelevant images such as a scroll that belonged to your family. YaLindaHadad (talk)

@YaLindaHadad: Yes my family does own a Torah scroll and I thought it was relevant to the Knanaya article because the community claims a Jewish-Christian heritage, a claim that a number of Jewish scholars have even expanded upon. However the page administrator said that because the image has not been researched or mentioned in any sources, it’s best not to include it, to which I conceded and never used the image again. You have not upset me but please stop making claims against me, we’re on the same side of this debate. Thomast48 (talk)

18:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC) 13:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Yoonadue (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as mentioned by other editors there are a lot of valid points here. The content is sourced. There is no need to delete this. Some rewrite may help to make it better. So keep it with some revision. Batbt (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no justification for creating an article on this subject. Anything of note can be discussed on the article on one or both of the mentioned groups, an article like this as a content fork is noit justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources do not support the comparison, only the individual facts, i.e. this is blatant WP:OR. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. The article has been deleted by admin Lectonar based on WP:G11 criteria (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FASTSUITE[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable software product. Fails WP:GNG. Of the sources cited, the first is from the company's website and the fourth contains much of the same content; the second source mentions both the product and its maker, Cenit, in the headline but never does in the text; but the accompanying images are attributed to Cenit, making it look like a paper written by someone from the company; the third appears to be real coverage, but it's in connection with the showcasing of the software at a booth at a convention. Of the sources returned by Google, many are also no more than summaries associated with the presence of the company at convention; the articles read like PR patchwork and, in a couple of cases, are acknowledged as being such. I found no coverage that isn't, or at least doesn't appear to be, PR or PR-sourced. Largoplazo (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted this as a G11; was also deleted thrice in DE-Wikipedia on the same grounds, posting user blocked over there too. Lectonar (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SMC 5092[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent reliable sources outside of tables and trivial references to support notability Sam-2727 (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the above, fails WP:NASTRO. Aldebarium (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Owen (musician). Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Rutabega / Owen[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find RS or significant coverage for this split EP, and therefore I don't think it passes GNG or the specific music notability guidelines. JohnmgKing (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Owen (musician): Barely found anything about the EP. I could've chosen to delete it, per WP:XY. But since The Rutabega doesn't have its own article, redirecting it would be the best option. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LAW (film)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This film is poorly written and doesn't have reviews from reliable source (The Hindu, The Times of India). TamilMirchi (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Imad_J (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable film with no reliable reviews. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Backlash (comics)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After Backlash (Jodi Slayton) was deleted via expired PROD in March, there is now only one comics article named Backlash. This is now a SIA with only one entry and a couple see alsos. There are two things that can be done with this - redirect to Backlash (Marc Slayton) or delete and then move Backlash (Marc Slayton) to this title. Hog Farm (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No need to keep since (comics) is not a desired parenthetical disambiguation per WP:NCC. If someone really wanted to move Marc Slayton, it would go to Backlash (character), but that doesn't need resolution here. It can be handled WP:BOLDly or on Talk:Backlash (Marc Slayton). -2pou (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A disambiguation page that is no longer necessary, as it only contains one valid entry. Rorshacma (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Grand Lodge of British Freemasons in Germany. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Rose of Minden Lodge No.918[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any independent sources about this lodge[29][30]. Fram (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added sources as noted in reason for page deletion and ask that the page now be granted RoyCrockford (talk) 04:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Grand Lodge of British Freemasons in Germany. Although the subject might be notable enough for a few paragraph mention in the main article, I don't think it's enough to warrant a separate fork. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, *Merge would restrict the potential of similar articles being created, where each have their own distinct heritage and in turn would end in making Grand Lodge of British Freemasons in Germany long winded RoyCrockford (talk) 07:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, article forks shouldn't be created in anticipation that writing about a subtopic of the main article will make it long winded. They are suppose to be created after the fact, when it's actually the case. In this particular instance, you never know what lodge or how many of them might have enough references and content for a judgement like that and fork to be warranted. Especially since the first one you created has already brought up questions about notability. There's a pretty good chance articles about the other lodges will. It's better not to waste your time or ours creating them at this point, just because you want to do the process backwards from your own conclusions that creating a bunch of forks now is the only/best/workable way to do things. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that my previous attempts were written in the wrong perspective and have no qualms against the them being consequently deleted; As you have already perceived, I am no expert at this. I also agree that time wasting achieves nothing but frustration and is ultimately what I am trying to avoid. I have been asked to create a page on behalf of the named lodge along with a future intent of creating more pages for the other lodges over time. If a "spin off" is not acceptable and a "merge" doesn't provide the requested outcome can you advise how I can move this forward? RoyCrockford (talk) 08:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing to do would be to disclose the relationship with the lodges on your talk page. So your account doesn't possibly get banned for having an undisclosed COI. Outside of that, it's hard to imagine the individual lodges getting their own articles. Whatever you were asked to do. The best route IMO would be to just write about them in the main article in the most in-depth well sourced way you can. Then after a while suggest forks for them on that article. I know it's not as simple as just creating the forks on your own, based on your standards, but it avoids the inevitable issues. You have to be able to justify the forks through good sources and large amount of content. Which I don't think you can do at this point. Having the information, even if in the main article, is better then not at this point though. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice, I understand your point of view and will look into the best way incorporating it into the main page, as you say it is better to have something than nothing at all. As a side note disclosing my relationship was my first action, I have a great respect for the work that goes into Wiki and have no intent ruining it for myself or others. Thanks again RoyCrockford (talk) 08:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I have added more references and, I'm not sure if this helps to Keep but, the page is a "Stub" to Wikipedia:WikiProject Freemasonry & Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history projects. I can and do live in hope! RoyCrockford (talk) 05:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read our reliable sources guideline. It seems as if none of the sources you use are at the same time independent (i.e. not from someone or some organisation closely linked to the lodge and the freemason organisation) , reliable (i.e. not some random website, but a reputable publisher like newspapers, well-established publishers, ...), and indepth (i.e. not just mentioning the Minden lodge in passing, but writing at length about the lodge). A general rule of thumb is that you need at least two such reliable, independent sources with significant coverage to avoid deletion (or merging). Can you indicate which of the sources in the article in your view qualify, or else add such sources if they exist? Fram (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Mysticum (http://www.mysticum.cc/?Deutschland___The_Rose_of_Minden_No._918) link is the only external reference I can locate which talks about the origins of the lodge and connections to the military. This German site records the regalia & insignia of secret & private societies all over the world and is, as far as I can determine, independent. Other sources I have linked show connections between the military and masonry in general, whilst the remaining links list this lodge as existing or a member of GLBFG & VGLvD; Except the Neue Westfälische Zeitung link which shows evidence of the lodge activity in its local area. I feel I'm at a bit of an impasse as, unfortunately, I am struggling to find anymore true independent sources of information or third-party references which could or can be pointed to. There are histories/ records (none digital) which have been written, but these are all from those who are either within the lodges own ranks or at one time hailed from them. . RoyCrockford (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that more sources, at least one being independent, and content have been added I believe the page meets the requirements to be a page in its own right as well as a "Stub" within the Wikipedia:WikiProject Freemasonry & Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history projects. I still live in hope. RoyCrockford (talk) 07:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- I've removed your second "keep" since we are supposed to vote only once (more comments are of course allowed, and changing a previous vote as well). The one independent source is mysticum.cc[31], which doesn't look to meet our definition of a reliable source, it is a random website written by a certain Johannes Altmann who has received no attention at all[32], never mind recognition as an expert. Even ignoring his name, the website itself has not received any attention either[33]. Basically, this is an obscure personal hobby website with no indication of reliability, fact checking, ... and thus not an acceptable source in general or for establishing notability. Fram (talk) 07:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't realise it was viewed as a second vote. More info has been added in connection with the notability of the lodge building and an external source for that information. It has also been tweaked to give a better appearance, more inline with Wikipedia:WikiProject Freemasonry. I have also noticed that his page (even though it is a stub) holds more facts than that of some other pages on Wiki (for example Lodge, Illinois or The Lodge (Indianapolis, Indiana)). There are enough sources listed to show that the lodge exists, its connection to the military in Europe, its connections to freemasonry, its connections to the city of Herford and Germany history during the second world war. It may not be as notable as a personality or famous organisation, but it is a part of a famous organisation and helps to build a better picture of the make up and history of that organisation. Its input adding meat to how freemasonry has developed in its different locations and strains over time and how external influences have affected its growth. I really believe this page adds value to this encyclopedia and does not dilute the quality by any means. Kind regards and still living in hope RoyCrockford (talk) 07:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After restructuring, rewriting and with extra sources added I believe this page warrants Keeping(only highlighting my initial vote here). As mentioned above, it provides the Lodge's connection to the military in Europe during & after the 2nd world war, it shows how it is an integral part within the world of freemasonry and helps build on providing a better picture of that organisation. Even if it is classed as a "stub" it is still a benefit to this encyclopedia. On a final point, there has been no other votes of "Delete" since the initial NFD has been posted and since the "Merge" vote was posted the page has been rewritten and restructured providing more meat to the page. Kind regards and still living in hope RoyCrockford (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But you still don't have any reliable, independent sources giving more than a passing mention of the lodge at most. All sources with actual information are either from the masons, or from mysticum which is not a reliable source (as defined at enwiki) at all. The number of commentators at this AfD is disappointing, but not a reason to keep this when the only one arguing to actually keep it is the article creator. Fram (talk) 08:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I still stick by my merge vote. Even after the "improvements." It still is notable enough a subject IMO to be another article, but even with the added sources it's not enough for a separate article. Like Fram says, everything is just trivial and from none reliable sources. There's lots of books out there talking about the Masons and things connected to them. So, if this particular lodge was notability there would be something about it from none primary reliable sources. To the person that created the article, it might be worth just splitting the difference and adding the content that you can to Wikidata. They have a lower notability bar and this is exactly the type of information that it is good for. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Not enough independent refs for a page, but enough for a section on main subject. Davidstewartharvey
Merge for the reasons articulated above. SMIB May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 12:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kister, California[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topos show a building in the woods; aerials show nothing but trees. this history states that a Mr. Kister had a ranch in the county, and that's about all I can find. Mangoe (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Negligent mass-production with false content. Maybe just prod these? Reywas92^Talk 04:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a community. And I agree with Reywas92. I've started prodding the obvious non-communities, and only sending the ones to AfD that I suspect might be controversial. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 06:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator, nothing that makes the place notable. Nika2020 (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Bislett Games[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable event that was canceled. Fbdave (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete individual meetings of this type. Geschichte (talk) 09:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (see below). It wasn't cancelled, although the scope and format were drastically impacted, and it was a televised event so it must meet WP:GNG per WP:NEXIST. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An individual athletics meet is akin to an individual soccer match, only less televised and with a lesser live audience. And such individual events are covered only in cases where there is a lasting impact. The notion that "it was a televised event so it must meet WP:GNG" is therefore fallacious. Geschichte (talk) 08:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is regrettable that it had to be cancelled but something that has not happened is not notable. Nika2020 (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Changing my entry above. Sorry, Geschichte, I thought this was a long-standing major games event but I must be thinking of another one. However, can Fbdave and Nika2020 please note that it was not actually cancelled? Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "Impossible Games" was arranged, without most of the events from Bislett Games but at the same time and in the same stadium. Geschichte (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elsey, California[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another non-notable, isolated railroad siding. It's not a town. Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 18:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Golden[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Outstanding PhD student, but still too soon for Wikipedia page. Eostrix (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Too soon" is not a valid reason for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He does not at present meet GNG nor Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria.--Eostrix (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient evidence of notability provided in the current version of the article. ElKevbo (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far WP:Too soon for even a remote pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Far from WP:PROF and the media coverage of research on which he was a junior partner doesn't rise above WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Max Harwood[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed under new article review process. No indication of wp:notability. Zero sources that cover him. Article says that he is known for a role in a a film that has not been released yet and which will be his professional debut. North8000 (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 13:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify the article, and before the article is ready for mainspace again redirect and merge the contents to Everybody's Talking About Jamie. As it stands, the actor fails WP:NACTOR, as all the sources currently out there only point to his role in Everybody's Talking About Jamie, which as the nominator rightly pointed out has not been released yet. It seems likely there will be more sources out (some of which may likely pass WP:GNG) by the time the film comes out in October 2020. Article contains some useful prose so there's no harm to incubate it in draft space, and is preferred to deletion per WP:ATD-I. Meanwhile, brief mention of the actor and his role in the film can be merged into Everybody's Talking About Jamie, with this article converted into a redirect. -- Dps04 (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rubber Tea[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BAND. Not notable at all. Zoodino (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Found this album review (although it is included in the article already) and and this album review but nothing else. And to be frank, these sites don't look too reliable either, they look like blogs. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hast'o Nist[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable tv series. Hanooz (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-04 ✍️ create

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cockwomble[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is just a definition for slang. Cockwomble does not appear in the Oxford Dictionary. Arguably meets A7 - Unremarkable content? OXYLYPSE (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Until 24 April 2020, this was a perfectly cromulent soft redirect to Wiktionary. On that date User:UnfussyKarma replaced the redirect with a WP:DICDEF, after which User:Richardw9 and then a series of IP users added "examples" of various politicians. (Neither UnfussyKarma nor Richardw9 has made any other edits.) Assuming that the vandals and trolls can be repelled, it seems fine to keep the earlier soft redirect. Cnilep (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I created this page as a Wiktionary redirect based on a list of highly-viewed redlinks. Keep as a soft redirect. feminist | freedom isn't free 10:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep It's not an article, it's a Wiktionary redirect. Someone added some junk to the bottom of the page, which I removed, and now it's a perfectly good soft redirect. Redirects are discussed at WP:RFD, not here. Spicy (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input! I'm fairly new here and just wanted to help out a little. Excuse my ignorance - can probably keep this as a soft redirect in this case? -OXYLYPSE (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as redirect -- can't this be closed, since the nom has withdrawn the AfD? --Lockley (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:G4: substantially the same (and same issues) as previous nomination. Primefac (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of dental practice management software[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

like other similar "lists", comparisons like this are nothing more than adverts and original research and spam magnets. The fact that there are only 3 articles also says a lot and I feel it's rather unlikely to expand given this ultimately small niche software market isn't likely to have products that receive the required coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW close - not worth extending to the 7-day usual Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World Day Without Wifi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This "World Day Without Wifi" is an attempt by an anti-5G group out of Argentina (or perhaps Barcelona, it's actually hard for me to figure this out as the group responsible doesn't seem to have an internet presence outside of Facebook any longer) to make this event a thing. It is not a thing. While WP:SENSATIONalist press coverage for the first day in 2016 happened, this remains essentially WP:ONEEVENT covered without much care as can be seen from the lack of any incredulity over the claim about "radiaciones tóxicas". We would need some good independent sourcing establishing this as a "world wide" event to keep this as an article. As it is, it's just not something that is anything yet. jps (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. XOR'easter (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per wp:notnews and (pssoibly) wp:not in general. Looks like an attempt at a meme that fail to take hold.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sad lonely little article, without any friends or policy based reason to exist. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing at pretty much everything including NPOV, notability, writing style, and English-language sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No evidence this gained any traction, article can't have any real substance beyond WP:ITEXISTS. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreeing with the other four here that the article needs to be deleted as it is wp:notnews. And I also agree that this is not wp:not. Pahiy (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per WP:NOTNEWS. desmay (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 20:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to add except WiFi conspiracies are really outshone by 5G these days. GPinkerton (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is incredibly lacking in notability. I see no reason to keep it. Scorpions13256 (talk) 05:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When searching, it seems that "World Wi-Fi Day" is what comes out instead... Indicating the lack of notability. —Paleo Neonate – 19:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability, just a fringe group trying to get publicity. Doug Weller talk 17:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, complete lack of notability 132.60.240.128 (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Despite not meeting WP:NFOOTY, the article still passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ilaix Moriba[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This footballer fails WP:FOOTY as he has no appearances in professional football, and is classic example pf WP:TOOSOON. Additionally, I think he fails GNG as he's not a particularly noteworthy footballer with less than 4k Google News hits. I think we're hitting a slippery slope with youth/non-pro footballer pages getting approved, and if this one stands then pretty much every youth player in top football academies are eligible for a page. Ortizesp (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ortizesp (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep definitely has a "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", so reaches WP:GNG. There are already several sources in the voice: [34], [35], [36], [37]... It is also quite easy to find other sources of the same type via a simple google search: Goal, Forbes, Total football analysis, 90min. Plus I really don't see how having "less than 4k Google News hits" comes even close to something that could be used as an argument here. A topic should be considered notable, even if there is only one really good source, as described in GNG. Also I don't think that the process that led to this AfD was quite appropriate: Ortizesp had tried to delete this article through a PRD one month ago, without notifying the author, and another user addressed this issue on his Talk page. Ortizesp then appeared to acknowledge that a PRD was not very appropriate in such a case. Still, he did exactly the same thing again yesterday, trying to get this article deleted via a PRD without notifying the creator, although a PROD is not supposed to be used more than once, and that it is only appropriate for uncontroversial deletions, which is clearly not the case here. --Coco (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This type of page 2 or even 3 months ago would have been deleted, it looks like there might have been a shift in what is allowable at WP:FOOTY. I think you are taking this personally, I am just surprised that there is even support to keep it. Also, it's not a rule that I have to notify you, it's just good practice and I am getting a handle on Twinkle right now. I am obviously vested in this case, as I also create footballers pages, and the arguments made here are relevant to future articles I may take. Cheers!--Ortizesp (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not taking this personally, I have no problem with people questioning articles that I'm involved in, and there is no issue with this AfD per se, but I am precisely questioning the specific way you handled all that came before, not being in line with WP good practices. And the way you used WP:PROD twice is clearly against its own rules, and it is quite hard to miss: "an article or file can be proposed for uncontroversial deletion, but only once". I don't think it is very appropriate to keep on talking about this here, but if you want we can go to your talk page if you want to discuss this any further. Regarding the thing people did on this project 2-3 months ago, frankly I have no idea, but all AfD I've seen about this kind of player who fails NFOOTY but passes GNG always lead to a keep. Furthermore if there actually where cases of such players getting deleted, that would be a quite poor understanding of both GNG and NFOOTY. In fact WP:NFOOTY clearly sais that "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability". As a matter of fact there is no kind of project-specific (additional!) criteria that would overrule the GNG. That of course does not mean that you can create any page of non-pro footballers, but when there are good sources as described in GNG (and that can always be debated), yes. Because Wikipedia is not here to decide which subject is worthy of being in its encyclopedia according to each user's subjective values and opinions, but we have to look outside of WP to see which subject does have a significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. If a player has gained such genuine media coverage, then whether he as played a pro game or not is pretty irrelevant. Hope this really help you for you next contributions. Sincerely, --Coco (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG. Giant Snowman 11:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG though it fails WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Clearly the required sourcing hasn't been found. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ship of Fools (band)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A short-lived English neo-progressive/space rock band. I doubt their notability. They were a great band, but I think they are not notable for Wikipedia. The article is sourced to Prog Archives and Discogs, both of them are unreliable. I did a Google search and I found an Allmusic biography (which is good news imo), but other than that the usual stuff came up: social media pages, streaming service pages and lots of shops where you can buy their albums. Where is the notability? Most of the results are also about a Grateful Dead tribute band of the same name. I found some album reviews, but those sites look like blogs. When I searched for their albums, i.e.: Let's Get This Mother Outta Here and Close Your Eyes (Forget the World), I found nothing else but streaming service entries (Spotify, Deezer, Apple Music etc), shops (Amazon, eBay, Media Markt and lots of other shops I have never heard of), the usual unreliable stuff (Discogs, Prog Archives, Rate Your Music) and the aforementioned reviews, unfortunately like I said, those sites look like blogs which is never a good sign either. The Allmusic source is the only one that could provide some notability, but it's not even presented here. So, in conclusion, Ship of Fools seems like a band that made no waves when they were active, and certainly not now. Fan pages, song lyrics, databases and shop sites do not cut it when we are talking about reliable sources. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as there is a staff written bio on AllMusic which often indicates that more sources are available. Will do a full search tomorrow, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find much more, only this short bio on SputnikMusic here. For other searchers please be aware that there are at least four bands with this name, imv Atlantic306 (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tadeusz Kościuszko Primary School in Zduńska Wola[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primary school. Source in article is school's website. No indication on why it is important. Eostrix (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Zduńska Wola : of local notability there. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to merge except the existence of the school could be mentioned in the list of educational institutions there. No need for an prose content. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails our notability guidelines.--Darwinek (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Chabot[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can tell most of the sources are trivial mentions in works about others or are just lists or announcements he is speaking (but its hard as I do not read Dutch). I thus am not sure it passes notabilty. Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (person who created the article) It is a well known author. Broodje gezond sold 50.000 exemplaren of as 2003. World cat says: 70 works in 171 publications in 1 language and 1,654 library holdings. I intentionally not list his biography, because this is an English site, but nl:Bart_Chabot has a big list which probably isn't complete. The sources I've used were independent. KittenKlub (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its not the amount you have published that counts, its people noting it that does.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All those reports are independent, and he has often been on television. He did get noticed. About the source from my talk page: From my reply to Slatersteven about the source: 1) University of Utrecht 4) News story from a regular news source 5) That's the Royal Dutch library's biography 6) Indeed that's from his publisher, but it's because the other 2 sequels were not mentioned in 5 7) Independent site 8) News site. The Digital Library is maintained by the Royal Dutch library and has a lot of primary and secondary sources KittenKlub (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Meh. A search shows he seems to be marginally known in Holland, and entirely unknown outside of it. There is reporting in what appear to be good Dutch publications, although it is more often than not interviews. He has published many books but it is tricky to tell if they are self-published or not, as there is no publisher data in the article, and there don't appear to be many reviews. Overall he seems like a fringe topic that would be marginally known in Dutch but someone who has received basically no coverage in English. Of course, lanuguage spoken does not really matter, but it does help contextualize the notability discussion. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True but he seems to be more notable for knowing notable people (at least that is my impression), rather than being notable in his own right.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well he does seem to be known there. They do things differently in Holland, sometimes in ways that defy strict reason. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But not not phenomenally well known, but rather an obscure poet (as far as I can tell), hence the AFD. Does he pass notability or is he just one of these ephemeral figures who hover on the edge of the artistic community, a Dutch version of the character Tony Hancock played.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: I'm still "meh" on this. Not a loss to EN-wiki if deleted, not really a gain if kept. I don't read enough Dutch to assess the sources for notability. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

His official website points to De Bezige Bij which happens to be one of the most important publishing houses. KittenKlub (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we need sources wholly independent of him showing that anyone gives a damn about his work, his work, not the work of people he knew, him. It dos not matter if the "the best publisher in the world" published 1,000,000,000 of his books, if no one gave a damn. Please read wp:n.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Dutch library is totally independent and therefore the Digital Library is a totally independent view of him using the primary and secondary who permitted republication. KittenKlub (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Libraries list all the books they hold, that does not establish notability.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the sources even, but (being Dutch) I can assure you that just about every Dutch person would know who he is. He is very well known. Vexations (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So how about linking to a review of his work, as wp:v means we cannot just accept your word he is famous.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we only hear your word? Because how on earth could Bart Chabot not meet notability? KittenKlub (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take my word for it. It's pretty easy actually; someone has to do a WP:BEFORE and it would help if they knew something about Dutch media so they know where to look. I've reviewed all the sources that are in the article now and they're pretty much all useless except for https://www.dbnl.nl/tekst/bork001schr01_01/bork001schr01_01_0186.php, which is a good source. If you run that article through google translate or deeple (which does a better job) you get something that is quite readable in English, and ought to give you a pretty good sense of what an encyclopedic entry on Chabot could look like. Vexations (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I asked for better sources and was in effect told "these are good enough". If there are better sources (such as reviews) post a couple here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are reliable independent sources. What more do you want? KittenKlub (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we understand the positions that both of you are taking here, perhaps we should now leave space for other editors to comment and provide their views. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.hebban.nl/Search?q=bart+chabot Many books on an official review site. KittenKlub (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chabot is a so-called BN'er, a nl:Bekende Nederlander, (the English equivalent would be an A-list celibrity) . He frequently appears on radio and television and has been a successful published author for almost 40 years. I'll mention this just in case anyone is wondering about a potential conflict of interest (my Dutch nationality etc.) that I don't particularly like his work. Now, about the sources. The are not wrong, and they are all reliable, but they don't do a particularly good job at establishing why he would be notable. For that, we need to show that mainstream media have critically engaged with his writing. And that exists, in abundance, in fact. In some of the highest quality media in the Netherlands, such as https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2020/02/27/het-begint-onschuldig-met-vieze-vanillevla-a3991979 for example. I've added other sources to the article. I don't particularly like working on Chabot (like I said, not a fan), but am available to help someone who does want to work on the article. KittenKlub, you perhaps? Oh, Speedy Keep. Vexations (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: Help is welcome. KittenKlub (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per analysis by Vexations.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been removed from the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Henshaw[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Guinea is about as non-notable as a diplomatic posting can get. More importantly, the article is built on primary sources. Geschichte (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's little agreement about the notability of diplomats (see 2015 discussion and Wikipedia:Diplomatic notability; AFDCO advises that Ambassadors are not considered inherently notable). We have quite a few ambassadors to Guinea, and at least several who haven't done more than be an ambassador. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 18:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep - If he should be deleted then why have this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ambassadors_of_the_United_States_to_Guinea ? --Elg26 (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why is Guinea less a posting than any other? I think that comment is extremley depricating and it is a nation state. Mr. Henshaw also had several high positions in the Department of State. This page should be kept.Williamsdoritios (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment Per WP:NPOL which states "The following are presumed to be notable:" including Sub-cabinet officials (assistant secretary, commissioner, etc.) are usually considered notable, especially if they have had otherwise notable careers which he had while being a member of the U.S. Foreign Service and within the State Department, of which both aspects are noted in the article as well. Snickers2686 (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User Elg26 ad User Snickers2686; Ambassadors considered to be notable-Thank You-RFD (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since Henshaw was a career Foreign Service Officer and Senate-confirmed Ambassador at the time of his June, 2020 death.--TommyBoy (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to realize how "Guinea is about as non-notable as a diplomatic posting can get." Geschichte, what makes Guinea less notable than any other nation? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep disregarding automatic notability, he passes GNG, as can be seen here:[38] and here:[39]. Presumptions of unimportance in this posting are biased, I imagine this was considered important in Guinea for one thing. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vincenzo Potenza[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a football manager who fails WP:GNG and who has not managed in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator on the grounds that they had made major fixes. Changes to the articles, however, do not change the notability of the subject. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and hasn't played or managed in a FPL. Dougal18 (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 04:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure Mob[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by a user whose name matches one member of the band, no reliable independent sources, minimal claim to notability which is not properly substantiated. If this was a new article I would CSD it as A7/G11 but it's been here for over nine years(!). Guy (help!) 11:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yet another case of a "non-notable band manages to stay on Wikipedia for way too long" disease. This article has been sitting here since 2011 (!) and no one bothered to add reliable sources. Oh well, they don't exist anyway. And when the name of the article creator matches the name of the subject, you know it's a bad sign. Sorry if I sound harsh. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard A. Flynn[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable business person. Many of the claims made in the article are not supported by the references or are otherwise empty promotional bluster. In particular in the version we had before I removed the worst of it.

In terms of the apparent claims to notability, that the subject:

has founded a number of companies seems to be established. But, there is no evidence that these activities have received anything other than a small amount of coverage. As the subject is Irish, I have searched through the newspapers of record in Ireland. A search for the subject's apparent full name in the Irish Times returns nothing at all. A search for the more generic "Bernard Flynn" returns information on a different subject, the GAA player and pundit. In an attempt to filter those, I filtered only to the Irish Times' business coverage, and found three articles in which the subject seems to receive a passing mention. Like this piece which is substantively about a different subject. Nothing that meets SIGCOV. An attempted search on the Irish Independent stable of papers returns a story in the Drogheda Independent. Which, as before, is more focused on a different person.
has sold a number of companies seems to be somewhat established. However, I would note, that no coverage of the sale of Red Planet to Deloitte seems to even mention the subject.
has been covered in "IrishTechNews.ie" pieces is largely inconsequential. The two pieces used to support the article text seem to be the only two pieces of coverage on this website. And, even if two pieces were considered "significant coverage" (and they are not), they are largely PR pieces/interviews. And hence not "independent of the subject".
is somehow the "original Irish Ironman" or "a sponsor of a cycling event"(?) are frankly clawing claims. And are not, as far as I can tell, in ANY WAY supported by the supposed references.

In short, I do not see how WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO are met, and am more than a little disquieted by the apparent PROMO, COI, FV and related issues. (I also note that the article's creator was blocked some time ago for editing in a way which triggered similar concerns from other editors/admins.) Guliolopez (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails notability. Spleodrach (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Dinnebeil[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

}No notability other than the chair that she holds at U of Toledo and no explanation as to why a person who holds that chair needs their own article which does nothing other than state they hold that chair. Donaldd23 (talk) 10:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination widthdrawn Donaldd23 (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 10:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 10:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 10:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 10:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPROF: the named chair meets C5, her citation record looks like a pass of C1, and she's editor-in-chief of the Journal of Early Intervention, a pass of C8. WP:BEFORE? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that WP:BEFORE was even needed here. The nominator was told when his speedy deletion tag was removed from the article, and again when his proposed deletion was contested that the subject passed WP:PROF, but he carried on regardless with this nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a clear pass of WP:PROF. The nominator gives reasons for expanding the article, not for reducing it to zero size. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Artists Association[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG. A significant portion of this article is dedicated to a comma separated list of names cobbled together with numerous sources of questionable reliability for anything beyond simply showing connection between them and the organization. Graywalls (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Artist organizations like this are rarely notable, and why would they be? They exclusively serve a local community and we are a global encyclopedia. Aside from local coverage, I am not finding enough to say that this meets the stringent requirements of WP:NCORP. All I find are boilerplate descriptions of the org, show announcements and many, many, many instances of "x is a member of the Richmond Artists Association". There is no story to tell the world here that meets notability guidelines. The user Mitzi.humphrey, who has extensively edited the page, also self-declares as a past president of the org on her talk page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per previous !votes. Seems to be a name checking exercise Lyndaship (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 22:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dato' K.M. Rifatuzzaman[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, no independent or reliable sources were found. Antila ✉ 08:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Antila ✉ 08:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Antila ✉ 08:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Was on my way to AFD it when I refreshed the page & saw someone already beat me to it. Like Antila already said, subject of the article fails to satisfy either GNG or BASIC. Celestina007 (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable person, article is self serving. Donaldd23 (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable person, fails to satisfy WP:GNG --SalmanZ (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: @Antila: A duplicate article of this article titled K.M. Rifatuzzaman is also proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K.M. Rifatuzzaman. ~ Amkgp 💬 16:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I just blocked the creator of this article for undisclosed paid editing. The article is terrible and might be nominated for G11 as well. Even if it turned out that the person was notable, the article as it stands is not acceptable. Note also that an article on the Akhtar Group, by the same creator, was deleted twice in 2015 for being promotional. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's in WP:G11 territory for sure. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Will undelete on request if reliable sources are located. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Club[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A pop-rock band from New Zealand. I doubt their notability. The article does not cite any sources, only external links which are not independent from the band / trivial mentions. The articles on their albums cite no sources either so they can be put to AfD as well. But back to topic. I did a Google search and most of the results were about the organization of the same name or another band of the same name from Pittsburgh. To be frank, I have never heard of any of them, but that's not the point here, this band might be actually big in NZ but bands from New Zealand does not get big publicity here in Hungary, in fact they are unknown here. (The only bands from New Zealand that I am semi-familiar with are Diocletian and Fat Freddy's Drop but that's not the point here either so sorry for being offtopic.) So I decided to look them up with the words "New Zealand" and I found some more coverage about them but they are still dubious to me. Of course the first few results were of unreliable sites like Discogs, Last.fm, Spotify, Rate Your Music and Amazon, then there were results from New Zealand websites but they all seemed like trivial coverage to me. For example, this seems reliable, this looks like a reliable news site, but unfortunately this is a concert promotion, the band is covered only in a few basic sentences. There was a site which wrote about them quite a lot but unfortunately it's a blog. This site also covers them, however, it is just another concert promotion, and while there are many sentences about the band, these sentences seem promotional to me, maybe even copied from somewhere (the site of their record label most possibly). Their Allmusic site is devoid of a biography which is also a bad sign (Allmusic is not a reliable source when it lists only the discography and the basic facts of a band). This article managed to stay here since 2006. I already said that it boggles my mind that so many non-notable bands manage to stay here for such a long time, especially in a state like this. So with all that being said, I think they are not notable. But hey, prove me wrong. Maybe I am nominating band pages too fast and there are some reliable coverage about this group. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have nominated the band's two album articles for deletion as well. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghostclubbing and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide Train. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Note that searching will be complicated by the existence of the unrelated The Ghost Club. In agreement with the nominator, I can find no evidence that this band progressed beyond basic local gig announcements and similar routine promotions. The most robust media mention I can find is this: [40]. All other sources are the usual streaming and retail sites and some scattered mentions of local performances. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The two album articles can go, but there may be enough for a band article. I saw Stylus, New Zealand Herald, Under the Radar. Editors with NZ knowledge may be able to locate more. My actual "vote" would be a very, very weak keep, which isn't saying much. Caro7200 (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Mangan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, No significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Creator has removed speedy deletion without any discussion on article's talk page. DMySon 08:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable Tik-Toker. Donaldd23 (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 12:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See also Draft:Jordan Mangan and WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Tiktokinfluencer -- RoySmith (talk)
Support notable equestrian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merrrywesteeen (talk • contribs) 16:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC) — Struck given WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Tiktokinfluencer --Jack Frost (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support notable- multiple news sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:48:4401:54E0:E9:A109:D810:7DD6 (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support notable- verified secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chand1 r12 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC) — Chand1 r12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Struck !vote per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Mz7 (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 22:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iqlect[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Run of the mill startup company whose coverage is limited to routine funding announcements, press releases and mentions in a few listicles. Fails to satisfy NORG. M4DU7 (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also Draft:Sachin Sinha and Draft:BangDB. M4DU7 (talk) 05:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)*[reply]
Delete promotional article for a run of the mill company. I'm not seeing anything notable here, about the sourcing or otherwise. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Dawson College shooting. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kimveer Gill[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not really seeing anything that would stand out and warrant this guy having any article separate from the shooting he committed. In fact, a cursory comparative analysis indicates this article mostly repeats what's already been written on the Dawson College shooting article. If there is anything new in this article that is not mentioned in the shooting article, it can be merged there. Love of Corey (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources in the article cover the subject very well, and they are not passing mentions. I don't think deletion is necessary, but Mr. Gill's article could be expanded. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 07:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about this article not being covered well by sources; it's about this article being redundant in the face of the Dawson College shooting. What could be mentioned here that cannot be mentioned in the shooting article itself? I can't imagine there being a trove of unique information that could separate this from the shooting article. Love of Corey (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: WP:BIO1E is the relevant policy; The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. There is nothing exceptional about this case, and indeed the biography is a pointless content-fork of the shooting article, with all biographical details focused around the crime. --JBL (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawing, poor nomination. As for the WP:BEFORE concerns, I did a quick Google search on the author to look for RS discussing her specifically, but did not consider the book reviews of her novels. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Candice F. Ransom[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a prolific children's author, but unclear notability. Natg 19 (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep to start with, many reviews at Publishers Weekly https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/authorpage/candice-f.-ransom.html and Kirkus https://www.kirkusreviews.com/author/candice-f-ransom/ what efforts of WP:BEFORE did the nominator make to check that notability? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Here's the Times article for her 1995 book-of-the-year selection. Too much is sourced to her site, despite other sources existing. Caro7200 (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. And it's apparent the nom failed to perform a minimally adequate WP:BEFORE search. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Primefac (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Nuayman ibn Amr[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, very un-referenced - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 15:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 15:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has a brief mention in a book, but that's about it from what I can find. Also, the article is extremely non-neutral. It would have to be fundamentally re-written to meet the guidelines IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, a number of sites discuss the hadiths associated with him ie. here, here, and here (note: i am not saying that they are all useable), a merge/redirect to List of Sahabah may be appropriate (unfortunate that it is only a list of names with no details of the individual companions)? Coolabahapple (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable figure in Islam. I've some offline historical Islamic resources, let me try cleaning it up and improving it. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 03:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per AaqibAnjum.— Hammad (Talk!) 04:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the ms.wiki article appears long and well sourced, but I don't read the languages involved. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More comments from editors familiar with the subject field are needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Juliette Han (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Aqib Jamil[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unfortunately I could not find coverage in reliable sources to expand this article or keep it intact. The references cited within it are mostly social media links. Mar4d (talk) 07:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kindly view the new added details and references. Invited as a panelist on Fail Faire vol.2 ^[2]^[3]^[4], guest on Radio Pakistan station Dhanak FM 94.^[5]^[6] Hosting Make Music Day Bedroom Studios.^[7] Aj316420 (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aj316420 Thanks. Please note social media pages are not an acceptable source to prove notability on Wikipedia. Consider providing reliable, tertiary sources like newspapers, television coverage and magazines for example. Making a guest appearance on radio is not by any means notable. You may refer to WP:GNG to get a better idea of what is considered notable. Best regards, Mar4d (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mar4d The source link which was provided for Make Music Day Bedroom Studios is a not social media link. A fellow music producer J. Dash is also listed there. It’s their official page link and Make Music Day is presented by NAMM foundation, biggest foundation of music.^[8] And television coverage sources were already present in the page.^[9]^[10]^[11] Aj316420 (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: Aj316420 has an undisclosed COI with respect to the nominated article and is the article's only contributor. Juliette Han (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juliette Han The only interest here is for the public to get a unified reliable information and which is provided. Also anyone is welcome to contribute. Thank you Aj316420 (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aj316420: FYI: If you contribute to Wikipedia about yourself in any manner, you should disclose your conflict of interest. This discussion is not an exception. You may want to know why it is not encouraged in general. Thank you too. Juliette Han (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juliette Han You're welcome. General COI declared, kindly review the page again. Aj316420 (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Most references at the article right now are from facebook, LinkedIn and YouTube. Unless third-party independent sources replace them, how can it be acceptable per Wikipedia policy? Ngrewal1 (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ngrewal1 The third-party independent sources are already present, kindly review them again.^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15] Aj316420 (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so, maybe they are! What really matters is....whether Wikipedia community accepts them as such? Hope you take it the right way or my intended way? I am trying my best not to offend you, Sir. ... but can you consider replacing the social media references? I think that might increase your chances of saving this article. Frankly, as we all know, social media references become a 'negative' rather than help you on Wikipedia. Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ngrewal1 All of them are the official pages of the esteemed organizations, not some personal accounts. And also kindly have a look at this citation by Wikipedia.^[16] Aj316420 (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails any notability criteria. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 21:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AaqibAnjum Please elaborate any notability criteria which it fails. Thank you Aj316420 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Thomas_Christians
^ "Fail Faire vol.2 - Daastan". LinkedIn.
^ "Speaker Profile of Muhammad Aqib Jamil - Daastan". Facebook.
^ "Super thankful to the esteemed panelists for sharing their experience - Daastan". Facebook.
^ "Bolti Sham with Faheem Bangish having Muhammad Aqib Jamil as a guest - Radio Pakistan Dhanak FM94". Facebook.
^ "Muhammad Aqib Jamil live on Bolti Sham with Faheem Bangish - Radio Pakistan Dhanak FM94". Facebook.
^ "Bedroom Studios - Make Music Day". Make Music Day.
^ "Bedroom Studios - Make Music Day". Make Music Day.
^ "World This Morning 11-07-2019 "Promoting young talent" - PTV World". YouTube.
^ "Future of Music Industry in Pakistan - GTV NETWORK HD". YouTube.
^ "Good morning pakistan - Roze News". YouTube.
^ "Street Studios - Make Music Day". Make Music Day.
^ "Bedroom Studios - Make Music Day". Make Music Day.
^ "National Incubation Center Welcomes its 6th Cohort - Pro Pakistani". Pro Pakistani.
^ "Varga Core - National Incubation Center". National Incubation Center.
^ "Wikipedia:Notability". Wikipedia.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

8:46 (film)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This stub was boldly coverted to a redirect by QuestFour, who cited "non-notable film that fails WP:NFILM". However, there was no mention of this film or related term at the target. I opened an RfD, where the suggestion was to AfD this instead, as there was concern that the page history might have notable contents. —Bagumba (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer Consider my nomination procedural (given the unique circumstances), and not an endorsement to delete.—Bagumba (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or redirect and add a mention of the film to the target, clearly does not meet the criteria for its own article per WP:NFILM. QuestFour (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two of the sources cited are IMDb, which is not an acceptable source due to being WP:USERGENERATED. The Encyclopedia Britannica, History.com and Virgil Films sources don't mention the film at all, and the Kickstarter source is unacceptable because it's WP:SELFPUBLISHED. The film doesn't seem to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it fails WP:GNG. Not a very active user (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete (or redirect if there's a mention anywhere) doesn't seem to have film reviews or other coverage to pass WP:NFILM (searching complicated only slightly by the fact that there are a lot of films on 9/11).There's some coverage in Variety and a short review in Library Journal but there doesn't seem to be any further coverage Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I understand that this page doesn't have a lot of sources, however I must point out that the discussion of the redirect for this page resulted in it being restored. Are we sure to delete the article after such a recent change by other people? Captain Galaxy (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Captain Galaxy: As the RfD nominator, I WP:SNOW/WP:IAR closed it, as the input was that an AfD was more appropriate to judge the content in the page's history. Do not consider the RfD close to be a "true" restore, nor this AfD to be a recommendation to delete. This merely seems like the best venue for a rather unique case.—Bagumba (talk) 11:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olav Kooij[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olav Kooij, but may not be similar enough for G4 - now includes some 2020 results that I don't believe were previously in the article. DannyS712 (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 06:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have put this up for a speedy deletion before starting the AfD discussion, but there doesn't seem to be anything new here since the article was deleted in February. He still doesn't meet any of the notability criteria at WP:NCYCLING and fails to meet WP:GNG. He currently rides for a development team and the only source is the team's web page listing the team members. My search didn't find significant independent coverage that would show he's WP notable. A PCS ranking of 790 also isn't very convincing of notability. Papaursa (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Spice Global. "Soft" redirect given minimal participation (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spice Group[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notable coverage anywhere. Personally, I have never heard of this company (I’m Indian). Possibly promotional. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 05:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 05:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 05:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 05:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spice Global where this enterprise group is already covered. AllyD (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy Close. The subject is a redirect. It appears that the nominator wants this deleted so that they can change the title of the article SpaceX Dragon. AfD is not the place for this. See WP:BEFOREMOVING for the correct process. (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 10:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon 1[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason Thanks, (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC) SpaceX Dragon should be moved here to line up with Dragon 2[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren W. Wilson[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Un-notable Resume, most references are about ColorComm, not Lauren herself, and notability is not inherited. dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 05:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lauren is extensively covered in highly notable sources and complies with WP:GNG.Kaley Willis (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pretty obvious the article meets GNG. The nomination claims the references are about ColorComm and not Wilson, but that's not accurate (the articles obviously talk about ColorComm, but that's because it would be journalistic oversight not to). (note: If the main issue about the article is supposed inherited notability, then it shouldn't be deleted - it should be moved to be a section of a page about ColorComm. which as of yet doesn't exist, but if the notability were truly inherited, it would/should) Samsmachado (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep with an early close per WP:SNOW. It may have been WP:TOOSOON when the article was nominated, but there is clearly now sufficient sourcing for an independent article, and the original reasons for nomination no longer apply (see the avalanche of keep votes, even completely ignoring the SPAs and potential canvassees). (non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Capitol Hill Automonous Zone - (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Free Capitol Hill - (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. A case of WP:TOOSOON and uncertain longevity, especially as "declared" communities are common parts of Seattle-area protests. Mainstream media has not made specific coverage of the subject, only making passing mentions. Sounder Bruce 04:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page! It's informative and really helpful. As a Seattleite, I was looking for information about what the heck is going on in Capitol Hill, and this answered all my questions better than any news article is ever likely to. Definitely keep this page up. It's doing exactly what Wikipedia is supposed to do - keep people informed!

Delete or Merge This is worth a couple of lines on the Capitol Hill (Seattle) page since it is a newsworthy event and perhaps a subsection in Defund the Police movement page. Detailing out what is essentially a part of a larger movement does not merit an entire article, especially with sections describing the structure of this political entity that will not survive. They clearly are not going to paves its own streets, pay its own sewer and water, and inform the city that all the businesses in their zone will no longer pay city taxes but instead will pay them to the autonomous zone (whether those businesses want to be a part of it or not). If by some miracle some permanent agreement is reached with the city and this area incorporates independently, then they can put up an independent article--OriEri (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge This is obviously notable however it's not something I would consider important. Give it a few more weeks before it collapses. Maybe we can list it as notable failures, lol. --Gabbobler (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)gabbobler[reply]

Do not support This is a notable development in not only the Black Lives Matter protests, but the state of the US. Regardless of the success of this location, it is not unlike the MOVE community, Catalonia, or the Paris Commune, which would be unthinkable to delete. This zone has received news coverage and been acknowledged by authorities local to the area. The page contains no violations and does not fit neatly into the category of the George Floyd protests because the demands are so much larger than that.--Lunac1312 (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC) — Lunac1312 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do not support The commune's article is notable and should stay. An article about a newly-founded "autonomous region of the US", which has multiple credible sources, should stay up despite how "soon" the article was written (the page doesn't even violate WP:TOOSOON). Sources, deemed as credible by Wikipedia, cited on the page talking about the notability of C.H.A.Z. include: The Seattle Times, The Daily Dot, and KIRO-FM local news (and at least two other Seattle-based local news websites) --Mt.FijiBoiz Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Seattle Times only mentions it in passing as part of greater protest coverage (Protesters, ACLU sue Seattle, blame mayor and police chief for ‘unnecessary violence’ at demonstrations), Daily Dot is a tech blog and not authoritative, the only mention from KIRO-FM is this live update thread (and their sister stations are not reliable sources). Given that this declaration came within the last 48 hours, it's not possible for a reliable book source to have been created, so don't try to count those. Sounder Bruce 04:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - SounderBruce, Fox News and RT are now covering it - https://www.foxnews.com/us/seattle-protesters-declare-cop-free-zone-after-police-leave-precinct and https://www.rt.com/usa/491347-seattle-autonomous-zone-police/ --Mt.FijiBoiz Mt.FijiBoiz (talk)
    - Per WP:RSPSOURCES, the longstanding community consensus is that RT is an unreliable and deprecated source. As for Fox News, it can be accurate but slanted, in this case trying to amplify coverage in a way that whips up fear among its base. Sounder Bruce 04:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I refreshed the page and saw the tag. There hasn't been any coverage yet, we will have to wait and see if this goes anywhere. Buffaboy ^talk 04:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not support, for the the reasons stated by Mt.FijiBoiz. CHAZ is a significant site and event in the US police abolition movement --DefaultFree (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not support, This looks like it's going somewhere, I'm not sure it's formatted correctly, as its more an ongoing event, but the national news will likely have this covered by tomorrow. I'd say wait and see. It think we are going to see a sharp rise in "support", and "criticism" in the main stream media so this will likely enter the political arena as a talking point, and I would anticipate "edit wars". Probably some Sr. Editors will be needed to sort this all out, and organize the article properly. (Should also add a note to why the Seattle Mayor lost the reelection, however that is a speculative future event, and not relevant.)Jzesbaugh (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge, (Follow Up/Addendum) Watching this unfold through social media accounts. There may be some censorships issues here. I'd definitely wait for more articles if they come to light. What I'm seeing is people sitting in the street watching a movie, supposedly in this area. These are social media links mostly. Why this may be notable is the stark contrast to the scenes of gassing and violence we have seen in confrontations with the police. The reason it might make more sense to consider for merging is that the contrast may be something to note. Again the issue here is how wide spread the coverage is.Jzesbaugh (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge, (Addendum 2) Because of the politicol nature of this issue is should be looked at from a perspective possibly not covered in wiki rules. Is the creation of the article effecting the event itself. Ex. does a page for it on Wiki actually contribute to its growth, or fueling the fire. At the time of creation of the article there were several sources for it. The article itself serves as a media reference and source for potential media research into the event. This is something to think about with a political article of this nature. The other issue is that this is a real event, and may for what ever reason not be being covered. There are some deep considerations here about how Wiki can lend 'Credibility' to something that may not yet be worthy of it. I think that debate needs to be looked at or if such a debate exists in wiki guidelines it needs to be framed out here. At current there are 19 sources some look good and some international. This leads to the second cited issue, censorship, which is the other side of the political coin here. The fact this event/location has been visited by politicians who seem to acknowledge it lends some consideration to the censorship and political aspects at play here. The article to be KEPT needs to do a good job discussing the political interplay going on and the relevant issues or "history" involved with its creation. The article as it stands does NOT do this. We cannot know if this will exist in 2 weeks time, however its historical relevance will likely be the determining factor in if the article is kept. The second will be any subsequent political changes and fall out. Both those considerations would make the article extremely relevant, as it stands it seems to fall into a murky PR area, where it's almost a promotional tool. However it can and likely should be salvaged with an unbiased historical context, as well as political implications related to the broader discussion going on in American and world politics. The fact that some of the sources are international further the case that there is historical and international notability. I think once the bias if filtered out there is an article here. Jzesbaugh (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into an existing article about the George Floyd protests; even if the article may give it too much credibility as a "nation", the creation of the group is covered in multiple reliable sources. Passenger pigeon (talk) 05:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically where I landed, if deleted its just going to find its way back in some other form tomorrow, it's really starting to cycle on social media. The Cruz tweet, verified, is going to see to that.Jzesbaugh (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 04:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 04:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not support This is an ongoing development and is likely to last several days or longer. Given the numerous conflicting reports and coverage of protests across the United States, removing this article could potentially be seen as an endorsement of censorship. I recommend leaving the article unchanged for 2 weeks, or as a live 'change log' included on the article to account for continuing developments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.122.100 (talk • contribs)

Keep I believe that there is enough media coverage to merit an article. Juno (talk) 05:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SPD has acknowledged it, giving legitimacy. https://twitter.com/jseattle/status/1270569577060032512 Pirate 05:23UTC 2020-06-09 —Preceding undated comment added 05:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Handsome Pirate (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Note the link above is to a tweet alleging a statement that someone may have heard on a police scanner and does not meet our WP:RS standards. Chetsford (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The tweet is from Capitol Hill Seattle Blog, which has been used as a source in several other Wikipedia articles. You can listen to a recording of the radio transmission in question with your own ears here ("SPD Dispatch East, 9:10:29 PM"). --DefaultFree (talk) 09:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OpenMHZ doesn't meet our standards for WP:RS and conducting original audio analysis of walkie-talkie transmissions is WP:OR. Chetsford (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fully acknowledge that OpenMHZ is original research, and I was posting that for your personal factual edification, not to meet notability standards. My point about CHS stands. --DefaultFree (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Recommend merging into overarching article(s) on protests. This is significant enough to merit a section header in a protest/George Floyd Protest article, but doesn't meet WP:N by itself and definitely fits the criteria for TooSoon. As an aside, I live literally blocks from here, and its a local joke. The 'signs' mentioned are cardboard signs and spray paint. It may merit it owns article in the future, should it actually be recognized by the city etc, but for now it's just a bunch of loud people on Twitter insisting that this is A Thing(tm). And its not. --IShadowed (talk) 05:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd err on the side of inclusion this time. The present moment doesn't feel like just another demonstration to me. The closest thing in memory is Occupy Wall Street, and the Occupy Seattle article still stands, and seems pretty good too. Groceryheist (talk) 05:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per MtFijiBoiz and Groceryheist's Keep votes. Geodude6 (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTNEWS. Mentions in WP:RS are largely fleeting or incidental. No objection to the article being recreated if it receives significant, dedicated coverage in multiple major media outlets, or if the "Zone" still exists in a few months but it is very much WP:TOOSOON. Chetsford (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TBH, this is kinda silly. I live in Seattle, and I have friends who live within the border stated in the article, and none of us had ever even HEARD of this until one of my overseas friends sent the article to us. This isn't a real thing. The precinct mentioned in the article on Capitol Hill isn't actually closed or abandoned, just has reduced numbers of police officers, and it wasn't ordered by the mayor at all, but by the police chief as a way to deescalate, as Cal Anderson Park is a starting point for a significant number of protests in Seattle (they start at Cal Anderson, which is next to the light rail and has easy access and large spaces to gather and head downtown, which is downhill, so relatively easy marching) and didn't want to have a significant police presence directly next to the start of protests. No one in Seattle would ever consider this a real thing. The article definitely should be deleted, or, at the very bare minimum, merged into an article about the protests in general and given very little mention. Jeancey (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been to the CHAZ? The precinct is abandoned and completely boarded up. Hippiecow (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 10 June 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewDunlap (talk • contribs) 06:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC) — NewDunlap (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that NewDunlap (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Keep 10 June 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.92.223.103 (talk) 06:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 172.92.223.103 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Keep Per MtFijiBoiz dh (talk) 06:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC) — DimethylHydra (talk • DimethylHydra) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that DimethylHydra (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Keep extensive reliable source coverage per Mt.FijiBoiz. Issan Sumisu (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per MtFijiBoiz Wjx987 (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even in the I guess somewhat likely event of the protest winding down/ the self declared "autonomous zone" being disbanded, this was still a significant development during the protests, and there are several sources covering it's existance, and in more detail. The argument that it is too soon because things like this are likely to be temporary doesn't hold water because A: even if it is not, it was still a notable event, and B: you can't see the future, you never know what this might become. As long as it has the proper citations in place here and now (and I think it does) there is no reason to delete it, and pushes to delete it may be politically motivated. Sarr Cat 07:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure about detail.... the RT source is the only one that really talks about it. In the other sources that even mention the name, it's mentioned once, and in each case it's mentioned as being among other signs. It's like someone googled "Capital Hill Autonomous Zone" and then used every result without reading what the articles actually said on the topic. There doesn't really seem to be any actual information about the zone (aside from RT which isn't really considered a reliable source). Jeancey (talk) 07:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not support as the establishment of the autonomous zone is a notable event with sufficient secondary reliable source coverage, not in violation of WP:TOOSOON. Bailmoney27 ^talk 07:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would question more the reliability of the establishment of the autonomous zone, rather than the sufficiency of the secondary coverage, there doesn't seem to be enough evidence to support and actual official thing..... Jeancey (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does wikipedia actually care if something is real or not when it comes to articles? Plenty of fake things have articles on them, including fake things meant to be passed off as real things that they arent. Thats not reason for speedy deletion; that is reason to edit the article with sourced information that asserts this is fake. Such as how the PragerU page specifically mentions that they arent a University and just wanna look like one or more evidently... See the wikipedia page for Santa Claus or Easter Bunny. Ya wanna claim this isnt going on and is a big hoax by twitterers and facebookers? Find the sources to prove your claim and edit the article; dont delete it.75.164.70.117 (talk) 10:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does wikipedia actually care if something is real or not when it comes to articles? - Not in the way you mean, no. My cat is real but it doesn't get a WP article. The mere existence of a thing doesn't qualify it for a WP article. Please see WP:N. Chetsford (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not support - Flawed AFD. WP:TOOSOON is not a deletion policy. Also, "mainstream media" is an illegitimate benchmark for WP:RS or WP:V. Also, the statement that mainstream media hasn't covered it (assuming that was a valid deletion reason) is just false: Fox CHS KIRO Telegraph (AU) Stranger Red State 8 - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 07:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Jzesbaugh noted, today there are more: Reason 10 11 FastCompany Stranger (2) Seattle Times The Hill NewsMax (fwiw) KFI AM KUOW RCP JDD (French) Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The list.. goes ... on: Seattle Times

KOMO Insider CNN "Lack of mainstream media coverage" is no longer a valid deletion argument here, if it ever was one - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 06:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not support This is very important, its good thing people can look it up whenever, it shouldnt be forgotten Hanadrizz (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC) — Hanadrizz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Merge - existing primarily as a form of protest, pulling it off to be a separate article is at this point unneeded - attach it to an appropriate article and only split in line with SPINOFF or, if it does turn out to be a more distinct body that exists after the protests end, then that would also warrant it. I'm also concerned by a veritable avalanche of SPAs, plus a number of completely non-policy arguments above Nosebagbear (talk) 08:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and expand to include content about "Occupation of the East Precinct" CHAZ is two days old. It is, in my view, probably Too Soon here - I'm not sure accurate RS's exist here, given how young CHAZ is.

However, the broader set of battles over the East Precinct are *unquestionably* notable. There was a near shooting there, several uses of tear gas, and outrage that will almost certainly bring and end to SPD's right to use tear gas, given how much it's impacted surrounding communities. I'm sure plenty of RS exist talking about the broader occupation.

If CHAZ makes it through the week, it will probably be worth revisiting the question of the name of the article, and we can have more accurate and in-depth information in RS.

For now, I think it's hard to argue that it's not too soon in re: CHAZ. Cam94509 (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any occupation of the precinct, and from what I can tell this has been declared by protesters occupying tents in the park, and not the permanent residents for the two blocks (and only two residential buildings) that is contained within the zone. Is there a reliable source attesting to the authority of the protesters to declare an autonomous zone over an area they don't actually live in? If I declare an autonomous zone over the entirety of Berlin, would I qualify for a page because I tweeted about it and a live blog of protests included that tweet? That's all that seems to have happened here. There was a tweet showing graffiti saying "Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone" and some live blogs of Seattle protests had tweets regarding this.... The protesters are also demanding the budget of the police be cut. This doesn't seem to conform with a declaration of an autonomous zone, since if they are no longer part of Seattle they have no reason to demand a budget lowered... they aren't part of it. This seems, logically, to imply that this zone isn't actually a real thing and is just a talking point, since they are still acting as a part of Seattle. Jeancey (talk) 08:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; you cud make such an article if ya did that and got it spread enough to get picked up by various local Berlin news stations and the like. Someone wud then come along and show that the claim of an AZ is false (using sources; not their own experiences) and edit such info into the article so that everyone reading the article about Jeancey's Autonomous Zone & Zoo in Berlin (JAZZ in Berlin) is well aware of all the information about JAZZ in Berlin's potential lack of validity as well as the claims that it exists. And then the people will know the facts and be able to come to a conclusion about whether existence of the JAZZ in Berlin is a hoax or not.75.164.70.117 (talk) 10:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even a long-standing anarchist-ridden place like Exarcheia is stated as a "commune", even if there the situation has always been even more critical. Fairly silly to consider this new teenager thing as a "commune". Delete it and write a paragraph into the "Capitol Hill (Seattle)" page. EntroDipintaGabbia (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:6800:8CC0:7548:CDC9:4012:AD71 (talk) 06:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It’s important that this page stays up as things develop on the ground. Even when the CHAZ is inevitably reoccupied by the US, this page should stay up for posterity. Sources will be added later but for now, information is constantly coming in from all over and is difficult to organize. 166.182.80.71 (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Autonomous Zone is, regardless of political persuasion, an extremely unique product of the 2020 US protests against police brutality and systemic racism. It deserves to be preserved on Wikipedia as an instance of a police force (presumably temporarily) abandoning a core section of a major city, and an ad hoc community forming in their absence. Porcelainbee (talk) 07:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC) — Porcelainbee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep per the source in the article and those listed above by User:KeithTyler. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: please consider moving to draft if the consensus is for delete, hopefully some of these eager editors can work on it there. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per the sources listed above; this is a notable development and should be documented. JiYongChaos (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There has been significant media attention on this area to be considered a notable development. While some of the information in the article may be questionable, the event itself is legitimate, important, and unique. While this may not be an autonomous zone by definition, it has been called the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, and thus the title should stay as well. (anon) 4:01, 10 June 2020 (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.67.223.98 (talk)

Keep. Per @PorcelainBee:. ProletariatetsBefrielseOrkester (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A lot of people are talking about this, and there are credible sources something is happening there. --Boklm (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now or Merge if no further developments. IMO, WP:TOOSOON does not apply here as there are other secondary sources, but its notability as a AZ could be brought into question if it doesn't survive the week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teh.cmn (talk • contribs) 12:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Teh.cmn (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

I, uh, that's a new one. Neutral feelings on, and unconnected to, the topic, and merely responding to the AFD, and certainly not here due to WP:CANVAS 🤣 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teh.cmn (talk • contribs) 16:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. https://nypost.com/2020/06/10/seattle-protesters-march-on-city-hall-to-demand-mayor-resigns/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:1580:3C45:5946:6961:5940:8E5C (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC) — 2601:603:1580:3C45:5946:6961:5940:8E5C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Because I remember when y'all deleted the 2019 Bolivian Coup article and look how well that went (Hint: There was a coup) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.31.40 ([[User talk:#top|talk]]) 13:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC) — 24.192.31.40 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Per everyone else's points here; the CHAZ is the subject of news articles (Seattle Times; NYPost) and seems notable in the history of Capitol Hill, Seattle. Hippiecow (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In my opinion, the original rationale for deletion given by the user who proposed AFD is correct—this is a) a relatively clear case of WP:TOOSOON given that the zone in question formed merely 2 days ago, b) likely to ultimately become a case of WP:NOTABILITY given that it is one of several previous "declared" communities that have spontaneously formed and eventually disappeared in the course of various past Seattle protests, and c) so far has not merited any mainstream media coverage aside from assorted local coverage and minor, intentionally incendiary articles from Fox News, RT, Sputnik and similar outlets (WP:Reliability). There were similar cases of moderately-sized "declared" zones that appeared momentarily in residential areas during the 1999_Seattle_WTO_protests, but none of these have ultimately existed long enough or been impactful enough to merit full articles.

Furthermore, CHAZ has been added to the "Current Examples" section of the Permanent autonomous zone article, but does not have the same degree of notability and longevity as any of the other examples presented alongside it, past or present. Rojava, MAREZ and all other instances of PAZ from the Permanent autonomous zone article besides CHAZ have existed for at least 7 years, and most have a clear historical or geographic significance and an accompanying media footprint spanning years or decades that is noted in their article. By contrast, CHAZ has only existed for 2 days and so far has not been consequential enough to merit mainstream media coverage beyond that stated above; frankly, I believe it is unlikely it will attract such coverage in the future based on the ephemeral nature of previous Seattle occupied zones. In addition, all other PAZ examples feature documentation of an active decision by the members of community living in the autonomous zone to secede from their broader state and form an independent commune (for example PAZ Rojava became independent at the beginning of the Syrian Civil War as a result of action by Kurdish nationalists, PAZ Black Bear Ranch was explicitly constructed as a self-sufficient commune by Richard Marley and his followers, etc.), but in the case of CHAZ it is unclear how many residents of the zone have consented to its independence or are even aware of it, and I was unable to find any declaration of it as a PAZ from any official source representing the occupying protesters. Anecdotally, from other entries provided by Capitol Hill residents on this page it seems that some residents are not aware of the existence of CHAZ or do not recognize it despite living in the region.

In summary, I think this article as of now is a case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTABILITY and has not existed long enough nor does it exist concretely enough to merit a mention on the Permanent autonomous zone article. I would recommend deleting now and revisiting it in a few months or one year, and creating the article then if it still exists. Kaltrops (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC) — Kaltrops (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - it seems to be notable enough, has gained coverage. Can revisit the discussion in a month or two if things fizzle out, of course. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 14:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS. Barely manages to scrape thru WP:GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreeing with the comments above that this topic infringes on WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS. It should also be noted that - given this topic is so new - there is no evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage of the topic. As far as the WP:GNG argument is concerned, topics that meet GNG are presumed to be notable, an issue in this case given that next to none of the WP:RS coverage of this topic seems to be indicating it will have long-term, encyclopedic significance. Deletion now is the best option, and if in the future more sources continue to sustain coverage of it then the article can be recreated. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If this was a widely reported weather event we wouldn't be arguing about this: It'd stay with a "current events" banner. WP:NOTE only requires that it has significant coverage (opposition party news like Fox, international publications like Daily Telegraph), said coverage be reliable in order to establish a firm ground for notability, and the coverage to be independent to avoid WP:IBA. And if the autonomous zone disappears, WP:NOTTEMP - the notability doesn't go away. If we later determine, after the whole thing is done, that the article can't sustain a high-quality page, then and only then should we consider merging the page into the collected autonomous zones page. ◗●◖ falkreon (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it already seems to have had notable coverage, and appears to be gaining even more coverage - and it is a significant development in the protests. Considering that Wikipedia is almost always going to be one of the first places people look to for a reliable overview of an event, it would be best to keep the page up for now. As per some of the other comments, if it fizzles out, then the page could be merged, but for now, erring on the side of caution would be keeping the page and improving it.NHCLS (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's been extensive coverage of this topic. It's notable and it belongs here. Bluedude588 (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability established by reliable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of ones political views or opinions of the various movements and circumstances involved, this article may very much be of historical importance, even if the commune doesn't last long. Burlingk (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.92.148.159 (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mt.FijiBoiz, Juno, Burlingk, and others. = paul2520 (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Mt.FijiBoiz, Juno, Burlingk, and others. ThisAside from my annoyance at the "(do not) support") syntax (I'm ignoring those), is a significant event in the protests that have played out, and the existance of a new society in an area of an existing nation is notable. 78.146.133.213 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Mt.FijiBoiz, Juno, Burlingk, and others. Meteorswarm (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per many others now. Even if it doesn't last very long, the Paris Commune only lasted 10 days, and it would be absurd to delete that (not that the two events are the same scale, the point just being that this article is very relevant to other articles on related events, regardless of how "successful" it is). -Tga (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Paris Commune lasted 71 days, not 10. Mar 18 to May 28. Kaltrops (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge with a lean on keep. The article has enough sources and it looks like the zone is developing into its own beast - but on the basis of WP:TOOSOON it's probably not much for its own article yet, ergo my !vote. Proposed target would, of course, be Capitol Hill (Seattle). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for all the reasons stated by Mt.FijiBoiz above. The formation of the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, regardless of how long the zone itself lasts or what form it subsequently takes, is a very significant event in the history of political activism in the United States. It deserves to be documented as a living article on Wikipedia. Originalgandalf (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC) — Originalgandalf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Adequately sourced to establish notability. It could conceivably be merged at a later date, and a reasonable merge target has been proposed, but that's more a topic for later discussion. WP:NOTNEWS is rather beside the point here: the article is not written in newspaper style and does not claim to provide original reporting. We do, indeed, write about current events. We just do so encyclopedically. XOR'easter (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well cited, accurate, notable enough to be kept up, should not be merged. (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a notable event, with coverage from WP:RS, in an extremely important moment in history. It's a current event, sure, but it isn't WP:TOOSOON. Coverage in RS negates that. --Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 17:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was coverage about the legitimacy of this zone on several Seattle morning news TV broadcasts, including:

KIRO 7 News (Broadcast) (Television). Seattle, WA, USA: Cox Media Group. 2020-06-10. Event occurs at 06:00. FCC
KOMO 4 News (Broadcast) (Television). Seattle, WA, USA: Sinclair Broadcast Group. 2020-06-10. Event occurs at 06:00. FCC
Q13 News This Morning (Broadcast) (Television). Seattle, WA, USA: KCPQ Fox Television. 2020-06-10. Event occurs at 08:00. FCC
KING 5 Morning News (Broadcast) (Television). Seattle, WA, USA: King-tv. 2020-06-10. Event occurs at 06:00. FCC 🤘֍Ȼ╠╣Ḻ֎🤘 (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes the story is developing. Looks like coverage is too. —¿philoserf? (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article has gained enough significance for it to maintain a place on Wikipedia, and has received coverage in both local and national news. The placement of a current event warning is appropriate, but the page should stay. User:Audrey1125 17:51, 10 June 2020

Do not delete this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:77F:BE66:5DA3:613C:EFB2:3FC1 (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. "Too soon" doesn't seem like a compelling reason to delete the article in my view, but that in itself doesn't seem like a reason to keep it. If, say, the National Guard clears this out tomorrow without much bloodshed, then it probably won't be notable at all. If it stays up for weeks, and/or there's a big fight, that might be notable. At the moment, I don't think it quite is yet. Perhaps it's best to keep it, merge with it with the all articles at a later time if needed. -Xbony2 (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge. Upon further inspection, it doesn't really look like much of anything. Someone just put a sign up. There are BLM protests, people giving out free food, some clean up, but nothing very different from anything elsewhere. No structure or intentions. Businesses are operating as usual, the mail still comes in, not really autonomous in any sense. Just a neighborhood with protests and people hanging out. Less police than usual but there are still police going in to deal with local issues. The barricades (now removed) were mainly to stop a vehicle ramming attack, people get in and out just fine. -Xbony2 (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is false. Free Capitol Hill Statement There are organized supplies, cleanup, patrolling, public film screenings, concerts. (The Stranger). Not "someone put up a sign." That's simply incorrect. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 06:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The CHAZ is significant in its own right and the pace at which developments are trending within the CHAZ shows this it will have staying power. Deleting it now would be de facto censorship — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:6E0:DAA:4C97:B743:6685:167B (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets WP:GNG already. WP:TOOSOON doesn't apply to things that have already received significant coverage, otherwise it would be impossible to create an article on any event until well after the fact. Probably should be SNOW kept at this point given the overwhelming consensus. Smartyllama (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes the GNG. Additionally, I see two concerns raised on the Delete side: TOOSOON and NOTNEWS. TOOSOON doesn't apply at all here: it's an essay that only addresses people and films; the only possibly relevant bit would be "Sometimes, a topic may appear obviously notable to you, but there may not be enough independent coverage of it to confirm that. In such cases, it may simply be too soon to create the article." But clearly, if it passes the GNG, that's not the case. NOTNEWS is more relevant, but there's no clear guidance on what constitutes news, only referring to "enduring notability" and explicitly stating that routine coverage does not count. This is clearly not routine coverage. Whether the CHAZ has "enduring notability" is necessarily speculative and subjective, and we can see here that reasonable people disagree, so I don't think that's a strong enough reason to delete. (Depending on how things progress, that could be a reason to come back and request deletion at a later date.) The GNG ensures that topics have sufficient coverage to write a sound article, and we already have that. -- irn (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At what point does the truthfulness of the declaration come into it? From all accounts, the Seattle Fire Department is still there, the Public Utilities is picking up trash daily, the SPD themselves are still responding to 911 calls in the area, and the city provided port-o-potties to the protesters and are maintaining them. They may claim to be autonomous, but at this point it doesn't seem to actually be that, the city of Seattle is still treating the area as part of the city and the protesters are still allowing them to treat it as such. I'm not sure at what point calling something autonomous but it isn't actually autonomous becomes a hoax. (The barricades have also been removed from the streets apparently) Jeancey (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We call it what it's called in reliable sources. We can't and don't pass our own judgments as to whether those sources are accurate. As another user told you above, if you have reliable sources calling this an elaborate hoax, add them to the article. Even if this were a really elaborate hoax, which it's not, that's not grounds for deletion, it's grounds for an article that mentions that. Smartyllama (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hoax was perhaps the wrong choice of word from me, as it implies intentional misrepresentation. What I meant was more of a proclaimed zone but de facto part of the city, with no real control over the actual functioning of the area as a community. The sources do support that the city continues to provide services to the area and the protesters let them. The sources support the argument that the zone is less autonomous than the article makes them out to be. Jeancey (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which is not a deletion issue, but rather a content issue. Smartyllama (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair point. Jeancey (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nothing to add beyond previous speakers on this issue, who have put forward convincing administrative arguments. Jordfall (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a donor I am asking you not to delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:9D01:A40:D82:758:B88:4478 (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how this works. Koopinator (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per all Keep arguments above, but consider merge (especially if this dies down in a few days).--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 18:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Enough coverage in the media, possibly historically notable moment for the nation concerned, easily meets WP:GNG as many have pointed out. The degree of autonomy achieved should not determine notability here. Bubka42 (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all Keep arguments above. Tvc 15 (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — It is attracting attetion worldwide, it makes sense that a wikipedia page should display open information on this event to all. Hugmus (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC) — Hugmus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Wikipedia has numerous articles on famous squats & communes i.e. Hippydilly & St Agnes Place -- surely this is a similar idea of Anarchist principles in action? It has lasted for a few days and may well last more so it is surely a significant part of the movement.WeeMungo (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Deletion – The TOOSOON policy indicates “If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon.” Our discussion into the quality of the article’s sources may be valid, but sources for the subject certainly do exist. No one is reasonably arguing these sources are all wholly unreliable either. Thus, this article does not qualify for TOOSOON and should be retained. Zkidwiki (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has a good amount of timely coverage and it's clear to me that a faction with a notable amount of support attempting to secede from the United States of America is itself notable. Faissaloo (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep. If western world survives the entire situation, it will be worthy to remember in order to not let the history repeat itself. Otherwise, article will be valid anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.104.52.124 (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to draft space I contest the claim that this has received widespread coverage. A cursory google brings up coverage, but not by any sites that I would consider mainstream (CNN, New York Times, etc.) except maybe Fox News. If it gets more coverage in the next week or so then we can reinstate this article, but the fact that we don't know for sure yet whether this will be remembered in a year makes this a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Justin Kunimune (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - As much as I wish for these protests to succeed, and as much as I hope that this spreads, I do feel that this is WP:TOOSOON, since pretty much all sources covering it are not covered by independent secondary reliable sources. It would be easier to just merge this into the overall protest coverage, and if more of these pop up across the country, maybe we can have an article of these autonomous zones as a collective, as opposed to individual articles for each individual zone. 2604:3D09:E27E:A800:799C:519F:E8CC:2D9C (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article represents a historical event with few precidents in the United States. To delete it would be irrisponsible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.87.33 (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps someone could point to an actual WP policy that indicates the amount of time that an event has to last in order for it to be notable and not WP:TOOSOON (which, again, is not a policy) I don't believe there is one. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article is treating it as a proper country, using the actual infobox for one. This is clearly not the case. It is not recognized by the government of the United States or any other legitimate nation. It is nothing more than an anarchist LARP that only started a couple days ago and is unlikely to last much longer. 86.178.138.34 (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A reason for edit, by no means a reason for delete. WP:SOFIXIT. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that this article is treating CHAZ as a proper country. It is not a proper country. datagod (talk) 🍁 22:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like an argument that the article content should be revised, but I don't know how this is a rationale supporting deleting what content is here. --causa sui (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable: this article is giving far too much credibility to a place with no government, where even the porta-potties are supplied by the actual City — I am essentially in agreement with the above IP on this.

Easier to argue, the sources are really not reliable to cover this in an objective, accurate way and/or prove notability; almost all of them are somewhat to extremely biased (The Stranger, Fox News, Industrial Worker, Democracy Now!, It's Going Down etc.), sensationalized (The Daily Dot, Heavy.com, New York Post etc.), very very local (Capitol Hill Seattle Blog), or some combination of the three. DemonDays64 (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many arguments, such as datagod's, are simply rephrasings of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There are more than enough reliable, secondary sources about this event. We are only supposed to consider notability, not article quality or other matters. DemonDays64, your contention does not jive with the community consensus about those sources at WP:RSP. Furthermore, reliable sources can be WP:BIASED, and that by itself does not destroy notability. You ought to raise issues at WP:RSN if you want a source deprecated, AfD is not the proper venue. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 22:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto: The source thing is a valid concern about notability; to cover a few city blocks as a country needs good sourcing, or we're really making stuff up. Those sources are certainly prone to potential undue weight — one very clear example is that a somewhat large part of the Heavy piece is circular reporting about the Wikipedia article. DemonDays64 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DemonDays64: I'm not defending all of the sources you deride; even before my !vote, I wrote on Twitter that Heavy.com is a trash source. However, Daily Dot, Industrial Worker, Fox News, New York Post, all of these are RS, some are biased RS, yes, but they're all RS. I'm not even arguing that we should call it a country in WP:WIKIVOICE, that's an article quality issue, not a reasoned AfD argument. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 23:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify/ weak keep Just as we do not allow an emerging musician to get his publicity on the back of Wikipedia, the zone should be given a chance to develop naturally before being immortalized in Wikipedia. With that said, I have zero doubt this will ultimately meet the standards of wikipedia. Whether it leads to a peaceful commune or violent expulsion, this is a zone with a story still to be written.(and don't think moving to draft is actually an option, so ultimately I am a keep. Slywriter (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a legitimate movement, no legitimate credible sources. No history in the making. Skarz (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWhile it is an ongoing event, there are multiple stories in the news showing it to be a singifcant movement. Even if it goes away soon, it will be a signifacnt event in history. MrGWillickers (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As most people said here, it is getting significant coverage to the point when I search "Seattle" on Google that links to articles about CHAZ are on the first page. Dwscomet (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To follow up on what Dwscomet wrote, I've added two nice local news sources to the article. One by KCPQ, the other by KIRO-TV. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 00:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - It's possible the article title may need adjusting (Defining this more as an event rather than a place), but the fact is similar incidents and occurrences have had articles within short time of them starting. (The Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in 2016 started on 2 January, 2016. We had an article for it on 3 January, 2016 with only 5 references.) We can always merge this at a future date if it ultimately disappates and there's not much to write on it. I feel the assertion of 'TOOSOON' is incorrect--The Navigators (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a fictional entity being pushed by internet pranksters. While the construction paper signs and crayon-colored barricades are newsworthy, the focus of the article isn't any more real than a Rennaisance fair's make-believe towns and costumes. It's funny though, so keeping the article wouldn't be so bad for the entertainment of the public. Wikinium (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article quality complaint, and has nothing to do with notability. WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 00:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Exact opposite - it's a well written article about something that literally does not exist. Tweets and physical signs pinned on street corners can't make a place officially exist, though. Wikinium (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikinium: According to you, what does not exist? The abandoned precinct? The armed guards and barracades? The mayor's statement that while some city services will continue, police will stay away for now? Please tell me specifically which hoax needs removing, and why the WP:RS's are wrong/unusable. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 00:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Keep. ~~This is a minor event within a larger series of protests. Not notable on its own.~~ -- Netwalker3 (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has now become notable, IMO. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is a necessary part of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:CA00:1EC:2A4:0:0:60:2513 (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. Have come to this conclusion after reading through the previous commentary above. It seems as if this is kind of a splinter page off of the riots and protests. I haven't looked to see if there is a page dedicated to the Seattle area protests, but if there is, this page is better suited to be added there. Not really something that should be an encyclopedia stand-alone, I don't think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaska4Me2 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i have added the micronations wikiproject to this article's talkpage and notified the project via the project talkpage as their editors may like to contribute to this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable for having significant coverage. Catiline52 (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is significant coverage and, as mentioned above, deletion could be seen as endorsement of censorship. Naea | Hale o Keawe 01:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naea-a-liloa (talk • contribs)
Keep. - per previous arguments against deletion as can be read above. Deletion at this time looks something like censorship. Also wish to note that disliking a source or its past biases on certain, different, issues should by no means make its report on this particular issue/event invalid or notably biased (I refer mostly to some discounting of the RT article, done above, which seems to be among the most extensive covering CHAZ). As far as I can tell it's an accurate report which gives coverage to parties taking both opposing and supporting stances... as are many from that outlet (slants in geopolitical reporting are by no means exclusive to non mainstream outlets... This has been seen repeatedly as well from, for example, CNN... only in the opposite direction according to taking differing geopolitical stances). Don't have to like an outlet to acknowledge it's reporting on one topic as legitimate or accurate coverage, as I would say is the case with the previously provided article. RT has a reach in the millions and is a global outlet, which makes its coverage of CHAZ significant (in my opinion) regardless of its reputation re. geopolitical biases. With that aside concluded, I would recommend keeping this article unless CHAZ fizzles out or is disbanded within the next day or two without violence (something I don't foresee happening in that timeframe). If something of that nature occurs then I'd recommend merging it as others have suggested above. Otherwise I think it's notable enough, and sufficiently reported on, to warrant the article. Whether the article needs a rework is a different matter... Chancellor1 (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This is a noteworthy event, but as it stands, it probably does not merit its own article. I propose the creation of a separate article on Seattle's response to the George Floyd protests. This feels like it would fit in well with Mayor Jenny Durkan's controversial tweets, the takeover of city hall by BLM activists, etc. But as it stands, this probably doesn't merit its own article unless things get more heated. So, I vote in favor of merging this information with another article focused on post-Floyd protest movements in Seattle. JakeDapper (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This event has generated enough world wide press coverage to be considered a notable event. Events with less press coverage and less sources, such as the Trump Free Speech Rally, or the many Occupy <City> articles which are listed in Occupy movement in the United_States, have been accepted by the community. In keeping with precedent, this article is notable and should be kept. If in retrospect, it is determined this is more appropriate as a sub-section, it should be merged after discussion.Gsonnenf (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
New source: City Journal. This foggy crystal ball will be quite clear by the time this AfD ends in six days. And this comment and all those before it will go quickly obsolete. (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 02:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not merge. Regardless of legal recognition, the area is notable, organized, and multi-faceted. It is not a singular event (like the sit-in at City Hall) but comparable to Occupy Seattle or Standing Rock, which both have articles. Merging would be reductive, providing less information on a subject for which many people are seeking impartial information. Turtleey (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, don't merge. Sufficient sourcing for a standalone article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several significant regional and national news sources cover it (with one even mentioning this specific article). Like it or not, it's gotten its place at least in the footnotes of the protests' coverage. Juxlos (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Right now it's WP:NEWS tier. We have no idea if this is just some 1 or 2 day non event with no lasting impact or this will go anywhere. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not support The topic has a growing amount of reliable 3rd party sources. Too soon or not, it is notable now, and I think we would be well served to give the article a chance to mature. TechBear | Talk | Contributions —Preceding undated comment added 20:36, June 10, 2020
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. The level of coverage transcends WP:NOTNEWS schetm (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a notable commune covered by multiple [[WP::RS]]s. 84percent (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it looks like this will be notable even if it gets removed. --Blemby (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- am I crazy, or are half the people here posting in this thread new users who seem to have just been sent here to canvass the page? Seems really fishy. I hope whomever is the AfD closer considers that. It looks like there's lots of meatpuppets and sockpuppets, especially when you consider that many users apparently don't know to sign their comments. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 04:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is becoming notable since Trump is talking about it --Caveman Caveman Caveman —Preceding undated comment added 04:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Absolutely notable and widely discussed. People come to Wikipedia for information. Why do we want to deny them that? (No need to give me your favorite "per WP:XXXX" reason. I've read them. I just don't see the point in deleting well-sourced, well-written articles about relevant topics. There's no net gain in doing that.) Also now the subject of a Trump tweet, which (I'm saying this as neutrally as I know how) does tend to create notability. Moncrief (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. notable, widely discussed, and heavily reported on. NoahRiffe (talk) 04:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable occurance, News coverage is fleeting AND incidental. WP:NOTNEWS] is a good policy to follow in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serafart (talk • contribs) 22:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or is it about to WP:SNOW?

Comment New source: The New York Times. [41] Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 05:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's already widely covered and the article is sourced well. No point of deleting it honestly. ShadZ01 (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in anarchist history. --Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because an article has flaws doesn't mean it should be deleted. Just because a deprecated source reported this doesn't invalidate the fact that many acceptable sources have covered it as well. Wikipedia is not censored. Leotext (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I do think this article is WP:TOOSOON, I do think it's too early to delete the article as well. It's currently notable and even POTUS has made comments on it. Occupations like this where law enforcement declines to intervene can last quite some time, such as IOAT's occupation of Alcatraz or the second Bundy standoff, with the latter even having its article created in the infancy of the standoff. This article is currently extended protected and in the coming days I reckon a lot of folks will be reading it. It could be a good resource. --ElKabong888 (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Observation: It is looking like a snow keep here, in the sense of avalanche rather than snowball. – Athaenara ✉ 05:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am starting to feel the same way. The original arguments for delete are mostly now invalid. Increasingly flat-out false and otherwise invalid arguments for delete are appearing. It doesn't meet the letter of WP:SPEEDYKEEP, but it's awfully close to the spirit of it. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 06:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Athaenara and KeithTyler: Myself, and the other editors who worked on this article, would certainly appreciate a removal of the "big scary warning". There is no reason this needs to run for seven days. I encourage you to WP:IAR if necessary and close this. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 06:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I hadn't already !voted, I'd be perfectly willing to do an IAR SNOW close myself as a non-admin, but I'm not comfortable cutting through two layers of rules in an IAR close, and the rules, such as they are, say snow closes should only be done by uninvolved admins. Smartyllama (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I actually came here searching for this very article, hoping to find sources that had reported on it. Deleting it, particularly in this time of immense interest, seems unwise to me. --Pacack (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article could use some work but that's not a reason to delete. It is a notable-on-its-own event within the current protests at the moment to warrant its own article, even if eventually it is short-lived. If it eventually dissolves without further events, only then it would warrant a potential merge in an appropriate location. To me this is in a gray area of WP:TOOSOON, but I'm inclined towards relevant enough. — LucasVB | Talk 06:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it, it is already significant enough to have an entry. 2020 06 17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay Mevrin (talk • contribs) 09:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Come on, this is clearly notable. And the zone has received in depth coverage from numerous sources (a few examples: [42] [43] [44] [45]) so the nominator's rationale is no longer valid. I don't see any point in keeping this open for a whole week. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 09:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is going to be notable whatever happens. Liam Skoda (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ♫ Do you want to build a snowman? ♫ gobonobo ⁺ ^c 10:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 06:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emeraz[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was not a notable website. Wikieditor600 (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only two of these sources mention the subject at all, and I think that narrows down the notability of the website. Here's a table of the sources. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 03:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Review
1	Doesn't mention the subject at all.
2	~~Reliable source, this one passes.~~
3	Spam advertising source, not reliable
4	Exactly the same as source three, so the same reasons apply.
4	~~Reliable source, this one passes~~

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, was not notable. Spleodrach (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the website. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This social-network proposition received some publicity coverage at start-up in 2010 and at relaunch in 2013, but I see nothing there which would have been sufficient for current WP:NCORP standards. Beyond that, there is the formal note of its dissolution and mention of its failure in an interview with its founder. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 06:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lewis Allen[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable author/ academic and businessman. Only three ([46]) mentions in news outlets (and only passing mentions of him at that), a h-index of 1 (cited 51 times) ([47]), and minor mentions in the broader scholarship ([48]). There is insufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources to pass any of our notability guidelines, including WP:AUTHOR, WP:NACADEMIC, and most importantly, WP:BASIC. ——Serial^# 15:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ——Serial^# 15:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ——Serial^# 15:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ——Serial^# 15:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't know about you, but I think being mentioned by NYU, being mentioned by the University of Chicago, and being mentioned by Spartacus Educational makes you notable, doesn't it?

No, Koridas, unfortunately passing mentions are insufficient to establish that topic's notability. Sorry about that! ——Serial^# 22:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to a stub about the Wages of Sin book. There are plenty of reviews of this book.[49][50][51][52][53] For Allen, however, I'm not seeing notability: no WP:NAUTHOR for the single reviewed book, nor WP:NPROF, nor GNG. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep. Three reviews of the earlier book, published using only middle initial, brings the subject to a pass of WP:NAUTHOR.[54][55][56] Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — non notable academic/author. No significant coverage observed. Celestina007 (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep seems to be a borderline pass of WP:AUTHOR which is generally accepted to require multiple reviews of multiple works; he has two rather well-recieved, reviewed and held works. (reviews as listed by Russ Woodroofe; library holdings appear to be 802 and 772 for his two books) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR by all standards. No references to attest to notability or significance to his field of work. Runforlimit505 (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC) — Runforlimit505 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. The reviews turned up by Russ Woodroofe during this AfD now demonstrate a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 06:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Pria[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Major results" listed in article do not meet the criteria for a male cyclist to be presumed notable, according to WP:CYCLING/N. Meticulo (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable cyclist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no results that would show he's a notable cyclist (i.e., meets any of the cycling notability criteria) and no significant independent coverage that would show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Discussion is tainted by the canvassing and any conclusion based on that is untrustworthy. Instead give it a couple of weeks and relist without the canvass Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nataša Stanković[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable actress or model or artist, fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:ARTIST, WP:NMODEL while failing WP:BIO. The article consists of non-notable or un-reliable tabloids, portals websites, mere repetitive mirror citations quoting same thing even the titles, hardly any reliable sources discuss the subject of the article, failing WP:BASIC. Interestingly the article consists instagram citation (cit. 2) along with citation 1 which is again images of instagram with quote of engagement to a player which also shows a case of WP:PROMOTION. Drat8sub (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Drat8sub (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Drat8sub (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Drat8sub (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Drat8sub (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Drat8sub (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: Inviting GiantSnowman, Johnpacklambert, Amkgp, Spiderone, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Theredproject, Jooojay, Eddie891, for reviewing with their valuable insight if interested. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Canvas no invites Atlantic306 (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not canvas, invited them seeing their participation in similar topics, closely related topics or area of expertise and their recent active participation at AfDs. Thank you Drat8sub (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely WP:Canvas of editors you expected to vote delete, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG Spiderone 14:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete a case of copyright violation as per WP:COPYVIO 76.1% copied from (https://www.celebritiesdetails.com/natasa-stankovic-height-weight-bra-size-age-biography-family-wiki/) having notice © 2016 - 2020 : Celebritiesdetails : All Rights Reserved. at the end of web-page. See copyvio report ~ Amkgp ✉ 15:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've declined the speedy deletion, this appears to be reverse-copyvio (that website's "article" is dated January 2020, but most of the matching text has been in the article since 2019). creffett (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deletea non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing could be improved, but right now its better than none. Also, I'd argue she passes GNG based on having a top 10 entry in this: Wikipedia:Top 25 Report/December 29, 2019 to January 4, 2020 ; Shows that she is well known and is notavle for her career and partner. DrewieStewie (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't mislead. Top 25 report is not a criterion of keeping an article. The article totally fails WP:BIO. The recent popularity is not because she did anything extraordinary but because married a famous cricketer. Tomorrow if my wife becomes President of a country, then a wikipedia article should be made on me too according to your logic. This is not how wikipedia articles are created, please revist the policies. This is totally a promotional article. Drat8sub (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 06:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poe, California[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another isolated passing siding, this one in the middle of Lassen National Forest with nothing for miles around except the river the rails run along. Well, and trees and rocks. Mangoe (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: another United States Geological Survey permastub that should never have been created in the first place. --Cornellier (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is a stub about a non-notable geographical location.TH1980 (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another siding stub. –dlthewave ☎ 04:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 06:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bear Club[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Teddy bears are cute but this was never a notable website. Wikieditor600 (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have checked with Pookie about this, he is unsure about the wikinotability of this club. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current version of the article shows reliable sources covered the subject years ago. Notability is not temporary. Bvatsal61 (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I actually disagree that the current article demonstrates sufficient coverage to show that this website ever passed the WP:GNG. Looking at the sources cited, one is just from a local paper from the area that the site's founders were from, one of them is actually just the actual Bear Club website itself, and the actual coverage from those supposed news sources cited sources are extremely trivial. One is just a couple of sentences, and the other is a handful of pictures with captions, and that is it. Notability may not be temporary, but if these sources are the only ones available, which seems to be the case, this website was never close to being notable to begin with. Rorshacma (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the website. Search results mostly show "The Bear's Club" instead. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If Bear's Club is the actual title, then still this article should not be deleted. Bvatsal61 (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Bvatsal61, based on my search, "The Bear's Club" refer to the golf club and is not related to the non-notable website. I won't explain any further. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The website had almost no popularity or significant coverage at all, and it only was popular for a specific point in time. That makes it fail WP:WEBCRIT. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 19:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rufus Martin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed through NPP. I am not seeing how this biography of a product designer passes WP:NBIO or WP:NCREATIVE. The claim of notability is that he invented a tent design that got some "hey isn't that cool" lightweight news coverage and was nominated for (but did not win) a non-notable award. The sources are mainly about the tent, not about him; the only sources that discuss the subject in depth are his own website and his IMDB profile, which obviously do not contribute to notability. Spicy (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Spicy I suppose you are right, I thought his work in film might be of interest but perhaps I should revisit this page after something of note (if ever) comes through. Thanks, --SALVAHOUSE (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Gadu-Gadu. czar 06:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blip.pl[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was not a notable website. Wikieditor600 (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not established. Renata (talk) 06:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gadu-Gadu, its current owner. No independent notability due to short-living Staszek Lem (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Staszek. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gadu-Gadu: Per Staszek Lem. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Mitra personal mover. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subhav Sinha[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is written like an advertisement for this person's invention. There is just one decent source that is actually about him - a piece in Entrepreneur India. I don't think notability is established by that. His invention also has an article (Mitra personal mover) which probably needs to be looked at as well. Besides, the article creator's username gives the impression that they might be related to this person. M4DU7 (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ShakeMyWorld[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was not a notable website. Wikieditor600 (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can not find anything pointing towards notability at this time.BabbaQ (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pin Drop Violence[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indian metal band. The article itself is unsourced, but there are three external links: their official site (not independent from the band), and two interviews, both archived, along with the official site. I don't know whether interviews are reliable or not - I have heard that they are, because they are about the band, but I have also heard that they are not because they are primary sources. I really don't know. But whatever, back to this band. I did a Google search and I found the following: name checks (mostly in context of other metal bands, or metal in general), blogs, pages where you can buy their albums, concert sites, social media, song lyrics (there are a lot of those sites when you search for this band) and stuff which contain the words "pin", "drop" and "violence" but nothing about the band. I found a Rolling Stone India article entitled "Pin Drop Violence was Awesome!" and I thought it was about this band, but nope, it was an interview with the band Tesseract who mentioned PDV in their interview. I also tried searching with the quotation marks, but the results were not any better either. I found a page which reviewed one of their albums, but it seems like a blog as well. The only reliable source was a Blabbermouth page which announced that they have released their first album. That's it. This is also one of those cases when an unreliable topic (in this case, band)'s page manages to stay here for far too long. This article managed to stay here since 2005 (!) and no reliable sources were presented ever since. The fact that so many unreliable bands manage to stay on Wikipedia for such a long time boggles my mind, to be frank.

GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They seem to have been active in the Mumbai metalcore scene in the early 2000s, but disbanded in 2009. Did not find reliable sources that are not just song lists of their two albums or trivial mentions, as in the Rolling Stone article (an interview of another band, and they barely remembered the name Pin Drop Violence). The most extensive coverage I saw was a 2013 blog interview with one of the former members. --Alan Islas (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 03:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prabhiraj Nadarajan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. The only reference in the article is a primary source. M4DU7 (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 03:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Hiigli[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Amsterdam Whitney Gallery is a Vanity Gallery and there are insufficient WP:RS to satisfy NARTIST. I couldn't verify the claims of inclusion in "supreMADIsm – Homage to the masters of Russian Constructivism Moscow Museum of Modern Art, Moscow, Russia" The event took place, per [57] but it is unclear to what degree he participated, and even if so, that one show doesn't satisfy N. There isn't much else on the CV [58] Theredproject (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing on this is really weird. A few journal articles, conference blurbs, patent applications. It is a hodge-podge of factual items rather than review coverage, which is what you would expect for an artist. Museums would provided that secondary appraisal necessary here, but they are not included. three of the four solo shows listed appear to be of the open studio variety. What I see here is just a jumble of facts and very little secondary interpretation of the work in reliable sources. I think it reflects the career of an artist, but not a notable one per our GNG standards, and certainly not per our WP:ARTIST standards.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing that looks like critical engagement with the work. Reviews, a book, a collection. Vexations (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 03:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Late Night Shots[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was not a notable website. Wikieditor600 (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None notable website. The only coverage is in a way to regional article. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An apparently now-defunct (since 2015) social networking website for one local area, with a limited membership. I don't think this group was notable enough to warrant coverage in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tanveer Ghani[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is about an actor that has no reliable sources on the Internet and hence is not notable. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is high time that Wikipedia stopped being an IMDb mirror. The fact that such an undersourced article has existed for almost 14 years is distressing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Have good amount of reliable sources available online. Someone have to revamp the article. Drat8sub (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I certainly think this article can be saved. I am going through the sources now and looking to find the best ones for the purposes of WP:GNG. I will post them shortly. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is high time that sanity return to AFD decisionmaking. The actor is apparently best known for a steady role in Eastenders in the 1980s, when coverage in "reliable sources on the Internet" was less than scarce. even though coverage (in print) was intense if not obsessive, But, hey, the new standard for AFD seems to be "If it takes even a little bit of effort, it isn't worth finding it." Of course, it's not like the very first page of the GBooks search results would turn up a Sight and Sound review saying "Tanveer Ghani. easily the best of the male cast, creates British cinema's first authentic vindaloo and lager lout" , which, of course, doesn't count as coverage because it's unreasonable to expect editors to look for print sources, even for actors whose career began in the 1980s. Or to check out the many reviews of a notable film like Viceroy's House which are readily found in GNews search results. Slothful nominations and support for them, as displayed here, discredit Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree there are sources available and article can be fixed up. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes WP:NACTOR with significant roles in notable productions such as East Enders as confirmed in reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (this has been relisted a few times already...) Editors should take a look at the German article and possibly inquire for assistance in translation before renominating. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dol2day[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was not a notable website Wikieditor600 (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to have the reliable in-depth coverage required for notability and everything about it in the article is extremely trivial. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about the site aside from being mentioned here. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems to me that the website received some media attention in Germany around 2000/during the early 2000s[59][60][61][62][63], at a time when the Internet was new and much smaller than today, and that it has some significance in Internet history as an early social platform. (I added a couple of sources to the article). The article also has six interwiki links, including a lengthy article on the German Wikipedia that has existed since 2003 and that discusses how the CDU supposedly plagiarised the website during the 2002 federal election. --Tataral (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keni Stevens[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Under sourced musician article. Artist may possibly be notable, however, as it stands, he does not pass WP:MUSICBIO. Although the article states his album Blue Moods sold a million copies, I can not find it on any charts nor any reviews. I can barely find any coverage of him at all - he definitely fails WP:SIGCOV. Mbdfar (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Do not delete. The subject of the article appears notable but under sourced. The first in line citation gives significant coverage and is a reliable source. Since it is not WP:BLP it should be kept for other editors to help add sources. Ugbedeg (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ugbedeg, could you be more specific about the source you're referencing? The first in line citation is about a different person, where Keni Stevens is mentioned in passing once. The only other biographical source looks like a blog. I want to agree with you, but I can't find any sources to substantiate any of the claims of the article. This actually is WP:BLP, and he does not pass WP:GNG nor any other notability checks. Mbdfar (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the nominator. Mbdfar's assessment of the article in The Guardian is correct - it is not about the subject, and contrary to Ugbedeg's assertion, does not provide any significant coverage about him. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 02:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Niehorster[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, no non-trivial coverage in third-party sources, cited sources are primary. 17jiangz1 (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR notability for this apparently self-published military historian. I could not find evidence of reliable publication of any of his books, let alone the multiple published reviews that would be needed for book author notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't satisfy any of WP:SOLDIER (including #8) or WP:AUTHOR. Mztourist (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 02:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Sterlington[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bodybuilder seemingly without notability. He has placed well in amateur competition, but it doesn't look like he competed professionally. It's hard to tell if he derived notability from his competitive placements as WP:ATHLETE does not have a section on bodybuilders. However, I do not see enough coverage to satisy WP:GNG. Mbdfar (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 01:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 07:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - don't see significant coverage to meet GNG (indeed a news search at [64] returns "No results found", and under a general search nothing appears to be significant coverage) --DannyS712 (talk) 07:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and Danny. I checked Newspapers.com (not sure if that was already done?) and came up with absolutely nothing either. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters (H–L)#Lift-Ticket. czar 02:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lift-Ticket (G.I. Joe)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mostly source to comics/movies/etc. primary sources. "G.I. Joe Order of Battle" is published by the same publisher as some of the comics, so it may well be an in-universe primary source. Joe Headquarters is an unreliable website. No significant coverage in reliable sources turns up with a WP:BEFORE search. Hog Farm (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters (H–L) per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters (H–L). Santosh L (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, not independently notable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, very sensible too. Snowball? --Lockley (talk) 03:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 03:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

r/AmItheAsshole[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, and does not contain any valuable content. The talk page already has a delete-consensus — Preceding unsigned comment added by I-82-I (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while there are a lot of news stories in reliable sources about things that have happened on the subreddit, there is no actual discussion of the subreddit more extensive than a passing mention, meaning it fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Mashable piece from 2018 and the Vice item from 2019 provide coverage of the subreddit as a whole. The list of specific incidents could probably stand rewriting and condensing, but I think we have a WP:GNG pass. XOR'easter (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable internet drivel. KidAd (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the idea that the Mashable piece contains some usable serious encyclopaedic material is laughable. I'm with KidAd on this, it's drivel. SpinningSpark 00:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that that a few random internet articles do not qualify as proof that this is notable, which it is not at all. Plenty of larger subreddits do not have a WP page. I would also like to show this talk page discussion, that shows even more arguments as to why we should delete:

I don't think this article is notable enough. I think it probably should be deleted. TheMickyRosen-Left (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, should there be a wikipedia page for every subreddit? Should r/AskReddit get a wikipedia page? There is very often news articles on Ask Reddit threads. Maybe a notable subreddits page? Sort of irrelevant to this discussion, but there seems to be quite a few subreddit wikipages that just should not exist. Joheinous (talk) 07:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I-82-I (talk) 09:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.